I vow to taste the truths of the Tathagata's words. Good morning. George, can you turn off those lights up there? Get one of those switches. Yeah. This morning I'd like to talk about the Fukan Zazengi, which is Ehei Dogen's primer of Zazen. But some of you are new and haven't been around so long, so I won't assume that you all know what that is. Some of you have just heard it many times and are totally familiar with it. So I have to go somewhere in between. First of all, for those of you who don't know, Dogen was born in about 1200.

[01:03]

He was the founder of this lineage of Zen via Japan. He brought it over from China. And just a genius, a brilliant, sort of sparkling genius kind of mind. And his writings, generally agreed, stands among the best religious writing in the world of all religions, along with the other religions, their best writers and thinkers, he is right up there. He had a real gift for being able to use words in ways that bend your mind, that take your mind down a different track than you used to travel in. But he's also very, because of that, very frustrating sometimes, and very difficult. He practiced, he became a monk at about eight years old, very young age in Japan, and practiced until, practiced Buddhism and then Zen, until he was a teenager, or in his early twenties.

[02:24]

and felt that he was not getting the authentic Zen teaching in Japan, that he had gone as far as he could go in Japan and that he was still missing a teacher that he could really have confidence, total confidence in. So he traveled to China. And after going to many monasteries and listening to many teachers who he didn't feel were adequate He finally settled on Rujing, a teacher he finally felt could be his teacher, that he felt he had complete confidence in. And he stayed with Rujing for several years and received transmission from him, kind of a sharing, emerging of mind, understanding, and came back to Japan at the age of 28 and spent the remainder of his life, and he died at about the age of 51 or so, 52, spent the remainder of his life teaching and setting up monasteries and temples.

[03:38]

So for our practice in Berkeley in 1995, he is our sort of first Japanese ancestor. the first thing that he wrote when he came back was the fukan zazengi an introduction to meditation or how to meditate and the fukan zazengi is about two pages long very short very concise in the history of buddhist practice there have Zazengi means something like principles of Zazen. So in Buddhism there have been many previous Zazengis, manuals of meditation, how to practice meditations. And different schools of Buddhism have produced these. It makes sense. If you're going to have a practice of meditation as a core practice in Buddhism, you should have a description about how to do it.

[04:50]

But for some reason, it's not exactly clear, but we can kind of speculate, the Zen school was a little bit shy about producing these different versions. From generation to generation, the communication wasn't like it is today where everything is, you just go up to the bookstore and you can see 2,000 titles on Buddhism and Zen and just take out whatever you'd like. In those days, it wasn't like that, obviously. So, from generation to generation, texts would be lost or created or changed. It wasn't so immediate as it is today. The Zen school was not so keen on producing these manuals of meditation from generation to generation. They kind of bypassed it, probably because they wanted to get away from the more rote approach of Buddhism, which became stagnant at different times, just like any religion can. The Zen school wanted to to point more towards a direct experience, immediate experience, and not follow a manual, do step A, then step B, then step C. However, Dogen felt that it was important, and he also felt that the meditation manuals that had been around earlier were inadequate, didn't really capture what he understood to be the heart of Zazen,

[06:26]

So he took a version that had been produced about a hundred years earlier and revised it. He kept about 70 or 80 percent of it but he added his own view to it. So when he was 28 he produced this and then he revised it several more times over the next 10 to 15 years. And for the rest of Dogen's writing and literary output, the ideas that are set forth in the Fukan Zazengi are developed more intricately. But you can see then the germ, the seed of them in the Fukan Zazengi. Fukan Zazengi translates as something like a general approach to the principles of Zazen. or the translation we use is a little more glamorous.

[07:33]

It's the universal promotion of the principles of Zazen. So in reading this kind of piece of work, in reading this, it's so profound that it can go right past us, interestingly. So it's interesting to me in studying this, how to study it, how to read it. And what works for me is to see what my response is to each part of this. And this goes for all Buddhist writing as well. How do I respond to each thing? And where does that response lead me? To me, that's more important than coming up with the right answer or understanding intellectually what the quote right answer is.

[08:36]

Because with all of this, you could come up with the right answer. I mean, if you had to take a test, Mel gives us a test, a quiz. Let's describe the five main points in the Foucault's Zazendi. You could do it. You could study it, and you could write down very nice, concise paragraphs. that were accurate, you know, what the meaning of the fukan to zengi. But they wouldn't mean that you really had gotten anything out of it, except that you were able to think. Well, we think all the time. This is very nice kind of thinking, but still to go beyond just thinking takes, is where we're headed with this practice, is to go beyond and to include, but to go beyond just thinking. So I'd like to look at something like the Fukunza Zenki in that light.

[09:37]

What questions does it bring up, and what does it bring up for me, more so than do I have the right answer to each of these questions? And so in that light, I'd like to just deal with the first part of it, just a few points may not get very far. And pardon me for reading, I don't like, I cringe when people read during a lecture, but I'll keep it very short. The way, and this is just the first paragraph, The way is basically perfect and all-pervading. How could it be contingent upon practice and realization? The Dharma vehicle is free and untrammeled. What need is there for man's and woman's concentrated effort?

[10:41]

Indeed, the whole body is far beyond the world's dust. Who could believe in a means to brush it clean? It is never apart from one, right where one is. What is the use of going up here and there to practice? So for those of you who know this well, you're well familiar with that paragraph, but for those of you who have heard this for the first time, let me just read it quickly one more time. The way is basically perfect and all-pervading. How could it be contingent upon practice and realization? The Dharma vehicle is free and untrammeled. What need is there for man's and woman's concentrated effort? Indeed, the whole body is far beyond the world's dust. Who could believe in a means to brush it clean? It is never apart from one, right where one is. What is the use of going off here in the earth to practice? So this is kind of, this is the absolute.

[11:46]

He, like a good Buddhist teacher, he presents us with the absolute. But this absolute is also a question that he actually had himself. As a young man, as a teenager, when he was about 14, this question began emerging in him. It was, well, if Buddha teaches that all beings have Buddha nature, if we all fundamentally have an enlightened nature, what's the point? Why are we doing all this? the ritual and the ceremonies and the candles and all the rest of it. Why are we doing all that? And this was really a very strong question for him. But the first part, the way is basically perfect and all-pervading. How do you hear that? When you hear that, the way is basically perfect and all-pervading.

[12:49]

Do you just immediately accept that? because an authority says that's true? Does it accord with your own experience? Or does it seem untrue or not right? And if it seems true, how do you experience that? And if you don't experience that, then what would make you think that it was true? And you could just swallow it because he says so. And kind of like if you learn a language, you could just speak French without, you know, that's the way we did it when I started. That's horrible language. But when I started to learn French,

[13:51]

The teacher just said, here's these French words. Learn them. It doesn't matter if you know what they mean. Just learn them. And later, you'll know what they mean and how they fit together. So you could take that attitude with this. Well, Dogen says such and such, so I'll just go along with it. But at some point, you have to wonder, what do you really understand? And what do you not understand? Why do you believe or disbelieve this kind of statement? The second part of it, which is, Dogen wonders, well, why, if this is true, why do we bother to practice? I personally have no problem with that whatsoever.

[14:53]

And again, I could make an intellectual statement why it is that although everything is perfect and all pervasive, we need to practice. Well, I would say, you may say something different, what I would say is, well, although intrinsically we are enlightened, our nature is obscured by our craving, projections, delusions and so forth, we can't, we don't realize what it is we've got. And practice is a matter of uncovering what it is we've already got. And so it's an uncovering, it's an uncovering practice. It's not a getting something practice. But Dogen could have come up with something like that too. So why, why does this question not him? I mean, he's a lot smarter than me to say it, to put it mildly.

[16:00]

So why does this question bother him? Because he could come up with what I just said, like that. And I don't know, actually, but it occurs to me that he was so advanced or so perceptive, that he probably could see this basically pervasive, all pervasive way, moment by moment, even from the very beginning. Could see the unity of things from the very beginning, could see Buddha nature in everything from the very beginning of his practice. And so having this experience in a sort of a daily way, he wonders, what's the point? Everything seems fine. Why should I continue practicing? Most of us don't really have that feeling, in my experience. But maybe he did. And so for him, the question really comes up, gee, everything seems fine already.

[17:04]

And not just intellectually, but actually, his visceral experience is just everything is fine as it is. So why should I mess around? mess with it. That's just speculation. So this first paragraph is the absolute. The next paragraph he says, and yet, if there is a slightest discrepancy, the way is as distant as heaven from earth. If the least like or dislike arises, the mind is lost in confusion. So already when I first read that, when I got to this line, I felt better. Like the first paragraph made me feel sort of like it was, you know, it's just too perfect. Second paragraph is more in accord with my own experience.

[18:10]

And actually, in a very succinct way, what he's done is just describe the second noble truth, which is that suffering is caused by desire. Buddha's first sermon, when he first began to teach, his first sermon was about the four noble truths. First truth is that our human nature is invariably bound up with suffering. And the second truth is that that suffering is caused by incessant craving sometimes gross sometimes subtle mostly gross and the third truth is that we can actually let go of that craving we can work on letting go of that craving and the fourth truth is the way to do that is the buddhist eightfold path but the second truth is that desire is what creates this incessant suffering.

[19:22]

So that's the same as when he's saying, if the least like or dislike arises, the mind is lost in confusion. I don't know so much about Christianity, but I wonder if there's a similarity with Adam and Eve in this. In the first paragraph is kind of the absolute perfect background of kind of like paradise, although it's not exactly Christian version of paradise, but kind of this perfect background. And then desire arises and our mind is lost in confusion. But then the question would come up, okay, that sounds pretty clear, but then if the least like or dislike arises, what does that mean?

[20:32]

Does that mean what if the French are testing nuclear weapons out in the tropics and blowing up the lagoon, creating all kinds of problems for everyone, and we don't like it, Does that mean that we just, well, no, my mind's lost, then I'm just gonna forget that, because that's just, my mind's lost in confusion with likes and dislikes. No, I just won't fool around with that. Or whenever you see something that's really unfair, or somebody being hurt, and you don't like it, would you just ignore that to avoid likes and dislikes? So it seems like a kind of dilemma. It would be nice to be a kind of a perfect monk off in a perfect monastery and just work and go to Zazen and eat and sleep and share your experience with the other monks.

[21:42]

And you could probably avoid and you could just let go of all likes and dislikes, maybe. But in this world where, and especially American world, which is so full of aggression and conflict, how can you do that? But it seems to me that he leaves an out. There's a little twist in that he says, and yet if there is the slightest discrepancy, and you can just sort of like whiz by that when you're reading it, What does he mean by that? And yet, if there's a slightest discrepancy, the way is as distant as heaven from earth. Is it possible, would it be possible to have likes and dislikes without that discrepancy? And that discrepancy, as I would understand it, that discrepancy is

[22:46]

Forgetting the background, not seeing the background, not seeing the absolute background, or not being in accord with it. Objectifying things without realizing the subjective quality. So if we're able to have our likes and our dislikes and yet not forget the background, maybe that's a different way of liking and disliking. I'm going to skip a few lines in a paragraph here, if you'll forgive me, because of time, and just finish with a few lines further on.

[24:42]

He says, you should therefore cease from practice based on intellectual understanding, pursuing words and following after speech. and learn the backward step that turns your light inwardly to illuminate yourself. Body and mind of themselves will drop away and your original face will be manifest. If you want to attain suchness, you should practice suchness without delay." So this sentence, to learn the backward step that turns your light inwardly, is a wonderful phrase. He didn't make it up, actually that phrase was around already, but he added it to this zazengi. It was not, I think I'm correct, it was not in there originally. I'm not sure about that.

[25:45]

Anyway, this is like, to me, this is the kind of essence of zazen, to turn your light, take a backward step. which to me makes great sense. That's why I like this practice so much, is because it's a practice of taking a backward step rather than this forward step, which the world seems to be obsessed with, which is this kind of pursuit of happiness, pursuit of... Actually, the backward step is a pursuit of happiness too, but it's a little hopefully a little more refined. But this pursuit that we're constantly engaged in, this pursuit of desire, have a forward motion, constantly running after something in our life that we want. We want more territory, we want more love, we want more money, we want more spirituality, we want more calm, we want

[27:00]

You name it. I want a nicer house. A better partner. Forward motion. It's like in football. There's forward motion. That's a backward step. You just go back the other way. Turn around. And that's what Zazen is. That's why Zazen is so difficult. you may not find it difficult. I find it difficult. Because all of my conditioning and all of my habit is towards moving forward, going towards something. And Zazen, you can't, it doesn't work. It just doesn't work. And it's a very, it's a very It's a problem. It presents you with a dilemma. It presents you with, not a dilemma, it presents you with a problem. But that problem that we are presented with is this wonderful problem that generates change in the way that we see.

[28:21]

But then again, you should think, to me that feels just fine, taking the backward step, I like that. But you may not like that, that may just seem crazy to you, or kind of upside down. And you can consider that, maybe you're right. So I get the feeling also of, in this phrase of recycling, sort of just constantly recycling, moving forward and then sort of coming back and recycling and moving forward and coming back and recycling. And sometimes when I'm sitting and I feel like almost hopeless, that it just seems so difficult to just settle down and be content with just breathing.

[29:39]

This kind of phrase is helpful. So, that's all, that's about 20% of the fukasas and gi, but that's all we have time for. If you have some thoughts, let's hear them. What do you think you mean when you said illuminate the self? Turn your light inwardly to illuminate yourself. It's mysterious. It's mysterious.

[30:43]

You can look at meditation practice in two aspects. One is concentration and the other is awareness. And so the illumination is the awareness part. So I would answer that just that illuminate yourself means Be aware, just be aware. If you are just aware, things will be self-evident. Maybe you could use some help, you know. Maybe a teacher can help you with that illumination. But fundamentally, just to be aware is to turn on that flashlight. of illumination. That's how I would hear it. What do you think? What would be the first thing that would come to your mind when you heard that?

[31:54]

Even if it's wrong. I think, well, you're talking about the self, it's like this personality that's going on all the time, all these ideas, but you're talking about something different than that. I think he's talking about something different than that. I think you need to do both. When you first sit down, you see, what you first see is all this personality. And then it's kind of like, then you have to ask your question, is this what you're talking about looking at? It depends on what you're, where you're at at that particular moment. I think he's probably talking about something deeper than just our personality. But I think you're right. that's included in that illumination. You don't just sort of discard that as being, you don't ignore that. I was just going to add that when you're talking about the background and the discrepancy being possibly not

[32:56]

Yes. But you have to make the mistake to try to do it properly at first, before you can find that out. In that same vein, I think it's interesting that the word you used is learn, the backward step, to which implies to me It's not something, oh, I'm trying to have a step back, even in my mind, a step back. No, that won't do. There's some other kind of backward step that I need to learn from another or discover through trial and error. And in that sense, what Leslie just mentioned and you were talking about, there's both the personality of the person actively seeking or making effort. allowing the uncovering and the integrity within to emerge.

[34:25]

The other thing I just wanted to say, Ron, I wanted to introduce the term original sin, which you made some reference to Christian paradise. We started out that way. How is it that we're now all stricken by guilt and ignorance and in sloth and delusion. The Christian response is original sin, which is easy praise coming off the tongue and rather more difficult to explicate. But I think all of us have some notion of a paradise that was disrupted Strangely enough, by just ordinary human curiosity, or already, perhaps, the seed of desire for something different. I don't want to get involved in that, but in any case, I think that concept, perhaps, would help us understand what Dogen was speaking about.

[35:45]

Yes, but there's such a difference. There's a key difference. I don't know if I can articulate it, but there's a key difference. We have some original situation. But the idea of original sin is a kind of a... Already you feel like bad somehow, that you've done something... Yeah, that's it. We all do. No, no. It's a concept. And to approach Dogen's thought through your own concept is... How would you approach it? How would you approach it? With the non-conceptual present moment. Well, is there any thought involved? body evolves.

[36:48]

So then what kind of thought would evolve from that? to not even hold on to, try to hold on to, yeah. Yeah, but still, thought has a place. Sure.

[37:57]

I'm really interested in Dogen's question, which my interpretation of it was, if we're already realized, if we are Buddha, why do we have to practice? Why do we have to sit? Why do we have to meditate? You know, the candles, incenses, no problem. It's pretty. It's pretty. The flowers are particularly pretty. But why do we have to sit? And the idea that I've been tossing around recently, that I heard, was this idea that, you know, we don't practice to become enlightened, but our enlightened state causes or allows or brings forth practice. Practice comes out of enlightenment. And I understand your notion of, sort of, we're obscured. Our condition obscures our enlightenment. or our sin. I don't have any trouble with that, because I think we do feel bad.

[38:58]

Even if it's not guilt, I think we're suffering. But more than that, what more idea, like practice coming out of this sense of I can't help but practice. Not even just to uncover my realized nature, but my realized nature is crying out to practice itself somehow because we're in this condition of time and space and birth and death and somehow, you know, like the non-conceptual moment or the non-duality. Mel's always talking about talking non-dualistically or having a non-dual moment. I don't know. Even in my deepest, like, being here now, my thoughts are going, my desires are going. I can't get away from it. My condition is such that my enlightenment is being expressed in a human realm, or they're coexisting, or however it is. So what's the sense of practice that is just inextricably bound up with our enlightenment in this world?

[40:05]

Practicing non-duality without the experience or the recognition of non-duality, having it never stay for long enough to be able to even describe, much less hold on to. Well, I don't know. You know, later on in the Fukan Zazengi, this is one of his major themes and also one of his major contributions to the Zazengi, the sequence of Zazengis over the generations, is what Karen is bringing up, which is that practice is an expression of enlightenment, not something you do to get enlightenment.

[41:12]

I avoided it. Because it's a hole. Because it's a... Because I don't understand how to approach it. Yet. So... I just point out that that direction exists. Maybe take one more comment and then we should stop. Speaking of space and time, I think we live in space and time and put things in our diaries and go on to this day that we forget how mysterious it is, really. I think that's part of our problem. And I had this thought about the word perfect, which was in what you read, and it's sort of pedantic, but perfect really means finished. You know, I think of a perfect tense, and I was thinking of that in one of, I think during practice period, when Mel was

[42:15]

discussing something. And I think if you take it that way, it's just to say that something is. It doesn't mean that it's good. We tend to use perfect colloquially to mean something that's good. This is perfect for me. But it really means something that's finished. So if you say it's perfect that the French are testing, it means it has happened. So how can you refute it? Maybe it's not good. Maybe you need to change it, but it has happened. And I think that's It's only part of it, but I think that's what Zen masters mean when we use the word perfect. Something has happened. And it doesn't mean it has to stay that way, but if it has happened and it's done, nothing else could have happened, because it has happened, so it's there. It's like that complete is a better word. All these words are very interesting when you start looking at the translations and the possibilities. It's very tricky, because each of these words has various connotations in the way we use it. And perfect is probably one of the worst words to use because it has so much baggage with it.

[43:20]

But complete is a pretty good word. It's a pretty low-key word. Okay, well, this feels a little incomplete, but that's life. That's perfect.

[43:35]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ