So before we begin with the first section of the text, I wonder if there's any questions or anything from our discussion last night that anybody wants to bring forward. Well, it does relate to the discussion last night, but it's really just a couple of brief comments of explanation and appreciation, especially to people who were perhaps walking by, so they didn't know what was happening at one o'clock in the morning. I had a vivid encounter with the recorder of the bathroom countertop, and I had the good fortune of a very unflappable roommate, Donna, to accompany me to Kaiser, the emergency room at 1.30, 2 o'clock in the morning, and she had great patience and support and let me drive myself at the time. So to anybody who was awoken and didn't know what all the fuss was about, that's what

[01:03]

it was, and appreciation to Donna for her great patience. I know she gave an explanation to some people in the dining hall this morning while I was still sleeping, so I got some stitches on the inside and the outside. So I'm feeling a little stranger than usual. But I also have advanced a recommendation to Martin that there perhaps be some... Sorry to disturb people. But I thought a lot about the cause, especially since I was there in the emergency room, and even the doctor there, when I told him where this had happened, and he was about to inject anesthetic, I said, well, you have to breathe. There you go.

[02:04]

If there's any consolation, it sounds like they're taking my last bow in the emergency room. I agree. I thought of you at the time, actually. Anything else? Yeah? Yeah, you said something at the very end last night. And I wasn't sure how it connected, but it just kind of struck me. You said something about the ideas and the beliefs that we identify ourselves with might not be worth holding on to. And that was like the last thing you said. And we went on, so I'm just wondering if that was something you could expand on, or if that was connected to the vision. Well, yeah. Of course, we have ideas and beliefs, and it would be impossible not to.

[03:19]

And we have values, and we make discriminations. And as we'll see when we get into the text, Dogen's conception of genjo koan does not advance the idea of non-discrimination and reject the idea of discrimination. But when we identify with our views and ideas, and therefore attach to them in such a way that when someone disagrees with our view or idea, we feel personally attacked, as is usually the case, actually, with most of our views and ideas, then this becomes a great source of suffering and problem. And a great deal of the strife in our own lives and in the world at large comes from this kind of thing. It's natural, and I think this is coming back to the issue that Robin raised last night, that naturally when you get two people, or even one person, there's going to be opposing

[04:23]

views. And opposing views are workable, as long as there isn't this kind of sense of the view is me, and therefore if you don't like the view, you don't like me. So I think that certainly one of the results, or one of the natural consequences of returning to genjo koan over and over again, living one's life based on the vividness of the then would certainly, when we had to return to the arena in which views were necessary, as they are mostly in daily living, we would then have a different feeling about how those

[05:26]

views related to our life, less a feeling of self-identification with views, or certainty about views, or the absolute, you know, we really have an absolute feeling about our opinions and points of view. So with an appreciation of genjo koan I think would naturally come a sense that, like everything else, that appears vividly and disappears, and is totally complete in itself, and also in another sense not even really there, our views are the same way. And we would then relate to our views and act according to our views with that feeling. I don't know if I'm getting this across, but anyway, a totally different relationship to views and opinions would be one of the consequences of entering into the koan at the present moment as the way that we live, as our major commitment in living. So I think that's what I was talking about.

[06:29]

Okay then, let's start at the beginning with the first section. When I refer to sections one, two, three, and so on, that'll be from the translation called Actualizing Fundamental Points. So I'm going to basically use that one. That's the one in Muneza Dutra by Kaz Kanahashi and Robert Aiken. I'm going to basically use that one, and then we can refer to the other translations for comparison, but that's the one I'll basically be using. I just want to review this very briefly.

[07:34]

Genjo, let's say, means manifested or arising with completion. Just to summarize all that I said last night, Genjo, manifesting with completion or manifesting completely manifesting, implying in the present moment. In the present moment, what's there is completely manifested. And koan, either we can take as the issue of that, the problem of that, the meditation of that, or we can take it as, in a way, a gloss on the word meditation or problem or issue, seeing the universality of each moment and the particularity of each moment. Remember, that was the second meaning of koan that I discussed. So in each moment of our lives, on a most intimate level or on a more gross level, in an issue that arises in the midst of our lives, that issue is the whole world is complete within that issue or within that moment.

[08:35]

And to bring ourselves to it and see how that moment, that issue, is universal and at the same time very particular and is to be honored in both ways, that's the Genjo koan. So we have here actualizing the fundamental point, we have the issue at hand, we have the koan of the present moment. We could also say the problem of or the meditation on each moment arising completely. So I review that because as we get into this, particularly in the beginning, this is what he's discussing, it's the meaning of that, what that means. So as all things are Buddhadharma, or when all things are Buddhadharma, or at the time

[09:38]

when all things are Buddhadharma, or in a moment, in a present moment, all things are Buddhadharma. And Buddhadharma here means, on the one hand, the teaching of Buddha. It also means, you could say, each moment. Because the word Dharma has a kind of double meaning, it's a kind of pun in Buddhist thought. It means, it actually means the present moment. And not only, even more specifically, the elements of mind and body that make up the present moment is called the Dharma. And when we say Buddhadharma, we mean, on the one hand, it means the teachings of Buddha, like in the sutras and so forth. It also means the elements of each thing arising in the present moment in their aspect of clarity and purity in accord with the Buddha taught. In other words, a purified, transcendent world in its detail.

[10:40]

So in the present moment, when that's the case, there is delusion and realization, practice, practice, birth and death, and there are Buddhas and sentient beings. These are all kind of opposites. Delusion is the opposite. Realization means like enlightenment. And delusion is the opposite. Practice is the path to get from delusion to enlightenment. So if you have a world in which there's delusion and realization, then there's a path to get from one to the other. There's birth and death. Things arise and pass away. And there is a contrast, a great contrast, between Buddhas who are enlightened and ordinary sentient beings who are not enlightened and are creating suffering, and so on. So in the present moment, as all things or when all things,

[11:40]

at that time when all things are Buddha Dharma, there is all these different things. So there are actually four steps to this first section. And that's the first one. And the interesting thing about it is the relationship between these four steps and what it's telling us about our life. So that's step one. Step two, as the myriad things are without an abiding self, or in the present moment, or when, the myriad things, myriad things means everything. All the multifarious gazillion moment things that there are in the world. Atoms, you know, on that level, the atomic, cellular level. All of these things, not only physical things, but also mental, emotional things, which are all in the same category, really. All these things are without an abiding self. Meaning, none of them exist in any fundamental way.

[12:47]

They just are appearances, rising and falling, without any inherent existence. Nowhere can we grab a hold of anything. Which, of course, as everyone knows nowadays, with our increased ability to study everything more minutely, technology and machinery and everything, this is what they keep finding out. So they hone down on something. They say, now we're going to find out what this really is. And then they find out that it's not really there. There's a smaller particle, or somehow it's not really a particle, they can't really tell, you know what I mean? And the same is true with studying the brain. They say, now we're going to find out where the emotions are in the brain. And they look in there and they say, well, it's not exactly there. And the closer they get to studying anything, it seems like the more they find that it's not really there. So that's what this is saying, that everything is not really there. You know, when you really get down to things, on the fundamental level, it's not really there. Now, the myriad things being without an abiding self,

[13:53]

and the first step, all things being the Buddha Dharma, these are basically equivalent, these are exactly the same statement. Because that's what it means. When it says all things are the Buddha Dharma, it means all things do not have abiding self. The nature of the teaching of the Buddha, the fundamental point of the Buddha Dharma is that things don't have an abiding self. We think that they do, and we get all excited about stuff that isn't really there. And so we suffer a lot, and the whole point, when Buddha was awakened, he said, there's nothing to worry about. You know, why is everybody so worried? There's nothing to worry about. I just figured out that there's nothing to worry about. So, hey, this is a great situation already. So these two things are really the equivalent. There are two different ways of stating it, though. And that's important. The difference in the ways of stating the same thing in these two sentences is very important.

[14:54]

Because notice what happens. In this one, step two, now there is no delusion, there is no realization, there is no Buddha, there is no sentient being, there is no birth and death, and they don't even need a mention practice. Why would you, with nothing at all, you know, there's no need for any practice, you know. Because there's nothing, no problem to solve, you know, no way to, no need to go walk down the path of the solution to the problem when there isn't anything to worry about to begin with. So, sentence number one and sentence number two are really stating the same thing. Only in the one case, from the standpoint of looking at it, looking at the same thing as if it were Buddha Dharma, which is to say Buddhism, the teachings and so on. Looking at the truth of life from that standpoint, we can see that there's practice and delusion, which we know, you know, we know that on one hand, you know, we can say, well, it's a wonderful doctrine

[15:57]

that I'm already a Buddha and that everything is fine. I hear those words and I can say that's nice, but the reality is I know that I'm in a mess and there's a lot of suffering and I need to improve and so on and so on and so on, you know. I'm not totally free and transcendent being, that's really true, even though this is a good idea. Still, you know, we have this problem. So, step two emphasizes the side, so step one emphasizes the side of the teaching and the problem that we have and our need to work on it and solve it and improve the situation in our lives. And step number two says that there is no such problem and these two steps are the same. In other words, these are identities. So, in other words, cutting out the first term of each sentence, you could say that delusion and realization,

[16:58]

practice and birth and death and Buddhas and sentient beings is no delusion, no realization, no Buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death. So, it's a kind of identity. I have a question. Can I ask a question at this point? Sure. Is there anything in the second part of this, in this philosophy, that has to do with the world of nature, that the myriad things without dividing self in the world of nature has no delusion? Well, the myriad things, in this case, this is discussing reality all in one category. So, nature or human, mental or physical, it doesn't matter. There are no barriers between them? Yeah. Okay. The difference, the only, the category here is that which exists, which is everything. So, whatever these sentences are stating

[18:01]

in relation to the human mind, the human body, these sentences are stating exactly the same for the sky, the trees, the birds. The distinction, in Buddhism, the distinction between human beings and nature, particularly for a Dogon in Japanese Buddhism, is not a serious, an important distinction. It's all one. That's why there's a very close, often natural imagery is used as a kind of way of expressing the insights of Buddhism, because it's not other. Nature is not other. Okay. So then, the next, the third element in the logical, if you want to call it that, structure, the Buddha way is, and again, the Buddha way is the same

[19:02]

as Buddhadharma, things without abiding self. Buddha way is the same thing. The Buddha way is basically leaping clear of the many and the one. So this many and the one, in other translations, it seems to actually say, not really many and one, but it seems to actually say fullness and lack. Or, you know, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, something like that. Now, first I have to say that scholars have been pondering, you know, the Genjo Koan, particularly this part, you know, for seven or eight hundred years, and there's many different views of this. Nobody really sort of has a definitive view. Isn't it fascinating that humans' words

[20:03]

could be, like, so subject to confusion and interpretation and discussion? You know, you would think that you would say something and it's clear what it is. Yeah. Well, this is the thing, this is what's fascinating about religious texts in general, is that they do, they do have this sort of, you know, many hundreds of years of interpretation that go with them. And that's what makes it fun, you know. Anyway, so I say that just because to make it clear that, you know, I'm giving you my views, but who knows. Can I just add something? I don't know much about Japanese, but I know some languages, like English, just by the nature of the language are full of ambiguity. Is Japanese like that? Because I know other languages... Japanese is far more ambiguous than English. Far more. Far more ambiguous. Because of the grammar of Japanese is much more based on context.

[21:05]

It's not an inflected language. So you don't know how the words relate to each other based on the forms of the words. Like, you know, if you say... Like, I think in classical Japanese there's no... I don't read Japanese or Chinese. I studied Chinese for a couple of years, but... In those languages, as I understand it, number, and tense, and so on and so forth is unclear. You get it from the context. Whereas in English, you know, it's clear if you say run, that's happening now. If you say ran, that happened before. And there's no interpretation about that. That's clear. Things like that are not so clear all the time in Japanese, and particularly classical Japanese. Modern Japanese has made an effort to become a little bit clearer in that sense, in that way. Classical Japanese is less clear. So that's part of it, is that Japanese speakers also aren't sure, you know, what they'll get. Just as if we read Middle English or Old English,

[22:07]

it's not as obvious to us what the grammar was. Anyway, the Buddha way is basically leafing clear of the many and the one. Which is to say, the Buddha way is neither step one or step two. It's sort of beyond step one and step two. It includes step one and step two, and goes beyond it. It's not limited to either one of those steps. Meaning, Buddha Dharma as a positive, noticeable teaching or look at things. Or Buddha Dharma as focused on as the insight of nothing really abiding or really being there. The Buddha way is beyond both of those. Which seem to be opposites in a way, although their identity is opposites. The Buddha way is beyond both of those. And so, being beyond both of those,

[23:08]

there is birth and death, delusion and realizations, sentient beings and Buddhas. Notice there's no practice in this line. It's not an accident or an oversight, I think. So in other words, in the first one, there are distinctions. In the second one, there are no distinctions. So we're getting back to this issue that yes, Tani Roshi raises in his comment on the word koan. Remember when I said ko means universality and an means distinctions. The first line is like an. There are distinctions that hold. The second line is ko. There are no distinctions, really and truly, that hold. And the third position is that the Buddha way is beyond both of those possibilities. And being beyond both of those possibilities,

[24:12]

we return to a world of distinctions. Birth and death, delusion and realization, sentient beings and Buddhas. And yet there's no mention of the word practice. Why would that be? Well, my explanation would be that when we return to distinctions at this point, it's with a totally different spirit than we held them in the first point. In the beginning, when we practice Buddhism and also in the beginning of the history of Buddhism, as a teaching, the distinctions between enlightenment and delusion and Buddhas and sentient beings and purity and impurity and so on were held and taken quite seriously. And there was, you know, the idea was that, well, you know, you were in suffering and in delusion and you were going to go from there to awakening. And there was a path to do that.

[25:12]

This is what the Four Normal Truths state, you know. But there is suffering. Suffering can be ended by practicing in a particular way. One practices and one notices the letting go of suffering and finally, ultimately, letting go of suffering completely. And that this is what we have to do. So we have a job. We roll up our sleeves. We do it. We set up institutions and structures in order to help us do that. We have steps. We have steps and stages and we practice in a certain way and we, you know, all of this whole thing, you know, is affirmed in early Buddhism and it's also affirmed in our own experience when we begin to practice. Because we wouldn't ever begin at all if we didn't think, I think, that we have something to do that is not, has not been done. Right? That's logical. So, that's the first sentence. But then, somewhere along the way in our practice

[26:15]

and also somewhere along the way in the history of Buddhism in just the same way at a certain stage of development, it becomes clear that the very idea that there's something wrong that needs to be improved and that there are all these things that we need to do in order to improve it, we've come to a place where we've cleared things up to an extent that we see, can see, you know, what's going on a little better than we did in the beginning and at that point with some experience under our belt and again, the same thing in the history of Buddhism with some hundreds of years of practice, we begin to see that the whole idea of needing to improve and doing these things for the benefit of, for the sake of improving and letting go of suffering itself becomes a difficulty, itself becomes a source of suffering and so we realize suddenly, maybe,

[27:16]

in this second step also refers to enlightenment is in the classical everything falls away, you know, we realize this view is incorrect, there's nothing here that's a problem, there's nothing here that we need to let go of or get rid of or improve, that everything is fine and that it's the holding on to the need to improve something and the laboriously walking through the steps and stages that is itself our difficulty at this stage so we realize there's nothing, so we don't need to practice, there's no such thing as practice, we realize, this whole thing about how we're going to go from here to there is not, it doesn't exist, we're free, we're enlightened, fantastic, but then that's not the end of the story, so enlightenment, I should say right here that enlightenment is just one of the many elements of Ginger, Ginger Koan is much more full and much more thorough than enlightenment,

[28:18]

enlightenment is you know, not even half way there because enlightenment doesn't include unenlightenment, and unenlightenment is absolutely necessary you know, for living, that's what happens, I mean, we see, you know, people are much more sophisticated now, but in the early days of Zen practice it was a shock to many people to find that they would get enlightened and then they would find that their lives were still screwed up and they had worse problems you know, than before because enlightenment doesn't go far enough, you have to include unenlightenment you know, in your practice it has to be big enough container to include unenlightenment because otherwise like I say, you know, you have the rest of the world to deal with so Ginger Koan includes enlightenment and unenlightenment the second step we could see as a kind of enlightenment yes I'm just wondering

[29:22]

in terms of the words I mean, my understanding is that the experience of Kensho which is what is opening is what maybe I would think that you were talking about I think we need something like you know, something like a more fundamental and clearer problem of the particularity of the self-concern and its nature itself more I mean, more because I think what you're saying is when someone has that kind of experience and then still realizes they have a problem so often the self comes back to the body so I'm wondering if that's the well, yeah, it's a question of terminology and I'm using enlightenment to refer to this second step and to refer to Kensho and then you're raising the question well, shouldn't enlightenment as I'm translating what you're saying into the terms that we're discussing this weekend you're saying well, isn't enlightenment

[30:22]

actually the realization of Genjo Koan yeah, and that would be so we could use the word that way but in this case I'm using more than Kensho beyond beyond Kensho yeah, deeper than Kensho right, and Genjo Koan is that bigger understanding right, right, but I'm using enlightenment in a smaller sense here in this case to refer to this second step and in the early days of Zen and in some schools of Zen enlightenment is used in this way the word enlightenment is used in this way to have this experience is to be enlightened but it's not enough yeah, mm-hmm could you say a little bit more about coming back to distinctions coming from beyond mm-hmm well that's let me continue with this because this is the next step right, the next step after in this little story of you know the individual practicing

[31:23]

right, at first seeing the distinctions and then coming to realize that the distinctions themselves become the problem and then opening to the fact that the distinctions don't exist and the same being true in the history of Buddhism now what's the next position the next position is returning to the beginning where there are distinctions again because this is the trouble with enlightenment and seeing the emptiness and equality of all things is that you find that in the real world you know the distinctions still hold and you end up bumping into things you know and getting in trouble because you feel that somehow you're beyond the distinctions or the distinctions don't exist but they actually do exist so you have to return to the world of distinctions but with a different spirit and this time there's the understanding of steps one

[32:23]

and two so now when you recognize distinctions you recognize them with the knowledge that fundamentally they're not there they're there in some way they're there in some provisional way but not in the way that you have thought that they were there in the beginning maybe just to suggest an analogy I don't know if this let's see if this I just thought of this let's see if this is a good metaphor or not I'm not sure but it's sort of like suppose you return to your hometown where you grew up like I did this recently my cousin and I went to a place where we had grown up and of course it looks completely different we were children you go back there and I remember my cousin was so marveling he said boy I thought it was so far from here to there and it's so short so close and I

[33:24]

thought this house was so large and it's so small he couldn't get over it he couldn't believe it so in other words it's the same place and he sees it as the same place but now with growing up with the intervening 30 or 40 years you see it differently so something like that maybe I don't know that holds we'll see but anyway you get the idea that it's the same place the distinctions do hold but one has a different feeling about them a different way of holding them when you see that the distinctions between things also don't really adhere and that the distinctions between things are fundamentally conceptual and not real you hold those distinctions differently in a more relaxed way in a more flexible way maybe

[34:24]

even so the hometown is still there but it appears quite differently because of all this experience so there are these distinctions and that's why in this line I think there's no word practice because delusion and realization here are not the delusion that one needs to get rid of to get to realization and sentient beings and

[35:24]

buddha are not the sentient beings that one needs to go beyond to become buddha but one sees that delusion and realization are distinct and not distinct that delusion is basically the same as realization and vice versa and sentient beings are not different from buddha and vice versa and so even though in this stage there are distinctions there isn't practice so not to say that we don't practice but we don't think of it as practice so when we practice in this stage we just see practice as being just like anything else that arises something coming something going it's an activity like other activities but it's not something that we're doing in order to arrive at another place it's something that we're doing just the same way we eat lunch or we do whatever we do for the enjoyment of it because we're alive because it's what

[36:25]

we do it's not we don't need to do it it's not a desperate attempt to escape a problem so that same explanation could could support why it might be there why practice why it might be there yeah I suppose it could it could and then it would be and the practice in the third step would not be the same as the practice in the first step yeah right yeah it seems the part of what you're saying is that you're bringing to the distinctions the non-distinctions as to the compassion mm-hmm yeah that would be a whole way of saying it yeah whereas in the first stage uh you're um

[37:26]

absent the wisdom and the compassion and you're wanting to get there mm-hmm the fact that the category in the first in the first step the difference seems like when you get to the last step there's no there's no judgment mm-hmm yeah in the first one that might be a pitfall yeah for yourself or for other people yeah that's a good point that's a good point because I think that you could say you could say that in the third step here uh there's discernment there's discernment in the sense of noticing that things are different from one another but not judgment judgment is about how things are different from one another and that one's good and this one's no good but at this step there's discernment distinction but not judgment and as we all know from our own experience uh judgment is a great source of suffering and problem you know in our lives if we judge ourselves and judging others those judgments

[38:27]

um in the sense of good and bad and worthwhile and not worthwhile and so on become a source of suffering but here there is there is distinction and discernment choices so on but without that uh sense of judgment I think that's a good point yeah well my experience there is that the shift from from discrimination to discernment yeah from one to the other when you're visiting back is accompanied by a feeling you know of missing something just kind of a uh uh a there's some feeling of uh wishing it was the other way just for a second or noticing that it isn't the other you know this isn't just a cognitive noting it's actually an emotional you know a lonely or a

[39:28]

you know a you can't go home again kind of just as you kind of unplug from you know you go back home and you look at it and it used to be your parents were there you know and they're not and of course you know that completely but and then it's just this house but there's a feeling that happens something a transforming moment I have that you have to sort of let go of something you know at that point so you mean in the case of the third step where there are distinctions but not judgment there's a feeling of letting go of something you know when you enter it at that moment there's a feeling of letting go of something that accompanies would you say like a sense of freedom well at first being unburdened at first it hurts I'm just trying to figure out whether the analogy is that I used in this case

[40:29]

not the more you talk about it the more it's not apt I'm not sure but I'm not sure whether you're talking about the analogy that experience or whether you're talking about the more general experience of letting go of judgment discrimination well then there is when you go back the third time it's gone you know I mean it's like you're free from it so there was reservation that you could ever go back home you have this idea maybe you could go back home and things would be the same as they used to be and you wouldn't have to face life but when you go back home and they're not then you let go of all of that you know I mean you go back home and look it's all there and you can make distinctions and everything but the holding on is gone I don't know it seems like but there's still a feeling of grief well there is for a moment but then yeah I think there's a link also between the expression of the place leave

[41:30]

without go home again because I think of it a lot about the people and even in a place the people who you experience there inhabit that place even in the absence and you would bring in the present that habitation and your experience from the past and the feelings and also the judgments and difficulties and the various dynamics of whatever those relationships were the people that they view the place with the feeling and the connection and so that puts those together and fills the interpretation of discernment and the letting go and that could also be the feelings of nostalgia or poignancy or grief because you're recognizing that

[42:33]

you're acknowledging the past as past and being present with what's there now and reconciling the distinctions over time well what you're raising is expanding on what Lee was saying about the sense of some grief or wanting to go home and realizing that that's not possible and all that and the feeling of that and somebody I forget who was saying last night were you saying about somebody saying about right Sarah was saying about the pain yeah of the present moment it reminds me what you're saying here reminds me of that and I think that it's really true that somehow grieving and loss is connected to all of this in some fundamental way I think not as a I would say

[43:37]

myself not as a the final sort of position but as an important way station along the way and something that we return to many times because and this is where actually it's quite appropriate this is where the next step comes in this is where the next step comes in and this is so let's hold that moment as something to say and then we'll get a letting

[44:38]

go of the attachment so it doesn't need to be included as a separate we almost talked about this the minute you see the feeling coming up then let go it's that kind of practice that may be made a part of one yeah that's But that's all very well and good, but then you have to go to the fourth, then it really explains it more than the last thing. No, I think, I agree with you. I think that, you know, one of my teachers used to say, always say, Zen is life. So, I mean, that's what, I think, how I'm understanding what you're saying. Practice is just life. So, there's no need to talk about practice as something separate from just living one's life. That's the way one lives one's life. So, there's no need to, there's no other thing on top of living called practice, you know. Step one, step two, step three, that way we can talk about them and so on.

[45:46]

But focus on his commentaries. That's something like, you know, each one is Genjo Koan. It's not that we're climbing up these steps to get to Genjo Koan. It's each one is already Genjo Koan. Let's see if I can find where he says this. Yes, so the fourth one. Yet, in attachment, blossoms fall, and in aversion, weeds spread. So, this is a sort of nitty-gritty, nasty difficulty of everyday, of the fact that,

[46:49]

you know, we have attachment, we have aversion. You know, when we have attachment to something, when we have attachment to something that we love, it falls away. When we have aversion to something we want to get rid of, it seems to proliferate. And Bok San, in his commentary, says something like, the word yet is understood. He says, yet, in attachment, blossoms just fall, and in aversion, weeds just spread. This yet means therefore, in Dogen's Common Rhetoric, which is a striking thing. After all these three steps, therefore, you know, not yet, but yet is a totally different meaning, right? It's the opposite. Now the question I have, is there a word like yet in Japanese? Because that word struck me in particular. Is there a word for therefore in Japanese? Well, you know, these things are indeterminate, right?

[47:49]

It's not like Japanese word equals therefore. It's a question of how one makes a judgment is how you're going to translate such a word, right? Because in the other translation, the word is moreover. Yeah. Though this is so, so he, they tried to do over. Yeah. But Bok San says therefore, which is a different thing still. It sounds like a proclamation if you were asking for it. Yeah. In other words, it's almost like if we want to look at this in terms of steps, this then becomes the highest step, rather than, despite these three steps, there's this. It's now therefore means, with these three steps, there's this ultimate step. And the ultimate step seems to be the ordinary deluded human condition. No. There's, in Abe and Waddell's introduction, the last paragraph, this is an old translation.

[49:04]

It's about maybe 20 years old, and I remember reading it when it came out. And this last paragraph was one of the most important things I ever read for me, personally. Particularly, this is on page 132 of the Abe Waddell translation. The fundamental standpoint of Zen is found in the realization of the flowers falling and the weeds rampant flourishing, just that they are beyond subjective feelings of love and hate. Seng Tsan's Shin Chin Ming opens with the words, The great way is not difficult, only avoid choosing. Only when you neither love nor hate does it appear in all clarity. From this fundamental standpoint, Dogen goes even firmer to affirm,

[50:04]

as Genjo Koan, human yearning for the falling flowers and dislike at the flourishing of weeds, insofar as both are ultimate human reality. So, I find this absolutely marvelous, you know. To me, it's the greatest thing. In other words, you would think, with all these steps and all these things, and all these, you know, deep insights and contemplations, that you would come to the place where you would be beyond human yearning, and beyond human emotion, and beyond all this nasty stuff, hate and love and so on. You'd be beyond that. That hate and love, which are, you know, grasping and clinging and pushing away and so on, these attachments, you would see as being the cause of suffering, and seeing that there's no distinctions and all these other things,

[51:09]

you would then be beyond all of that, you see. This is what you would imagine. But here, the ultimate step in this whole sequence is to return to ordinary human emotion as Genjo Koan. In other words, the present moment, completely vividly experiencing one's own humanness, which is delusion, would be also Genjo Koan, and perhaps even the most sublime of all the aspects of Genjo Koan. This, to me, struck me as absolutely the most wonderful thing, when I first thought of it, reading this years ago. Yes? In this saying, aren't they using love in a different way than... In what I just read to you? Yes, isn't that used in a different way than if you had the proper kind of love? Isn't that more of a desiring kind of...

[52:11]

You desire the flower petals rather than wanting them to just be flower petals? Sort of thing. Right. It's used in that way. Attachment. Yes. Okay. But don't, if you return to them as the ultimate, if you embrace them totally, live them without just being in the moment with these, then you really are experiencing steps one through three. Yes. I mean, it does come as a lesson. Yes. So, I'm not sure. Say more what you're... Well, the feeling is that you return... The way you speak to it, I could take it two ways. You return to your human suffering and your attachment and your clinging and your greed and all of that, and you're attached to it and you're... And you think it's real. You think it's permanent. You think it's a part of yourself. That's one way I can take it. Yes. That's what you're saying. The other way is that if you come to that moment of incredible jealousy and envy totally,

[53:16]

and have, through experiencing the first three steps in some way, or practicing with them, see that they don't have an abiding self, realize they don't have an abiding self, and that that experience is actually then where you go of these afflictive emotions. Well, I would say that both... It's a koan. Yeah, both are Ganesha koans. Yeah. This, I would say, for me, this line, and I often say this, you know, that one needs to respect human greed and defiled, or whatever you want to call it, afflictive human emotions. Respect them and honor them as what they are. Not see them as something that needs to be improved, eliminated, and so on.

[54:21]

Could you also call it embracing imperfection? Yeah, embracing imperfection. That's good. I think so. Yeah, the tragedy of the human situation. Affirming it. Appreciating it. That as long as we're in a human condition, there is an inherent imperfection. And that the best imperfection is the most we can aspire to in this condition. And, simultaneously, the other two. There's the Buddhas. So, again, it works, actually. Yeah. In a minute, I'm going to read some of the variant translations of this whole section, very slowly, so that we can hear them. Because, obviously, we're not going to arrive at the truth about this section, right?

[55:23]

All we're going to hope to do is raise many issues and appreciate many sides of it, and then hear lots of different echoes. And, hopefully, we'll end up more confused than we were at the beginning. Because, if not, then we have a problem. We're not understanding what it says. I think what I was trying to use is this line in Abbe's words. The fundamental standpoint of Zen is found in the realization of the flowers falling, and the weeds sprouting, flourishing, just as they are, beyond subjective views of love and hate. Yes. Well, I'm not sure about that line. We'll see. I'm going to read you Bokusan's comment. And I think Bokusan would have a different view. I was mostly focusing on this part. To affirm, as Genjo Koan, man's yearning for the fallen flowers, and dislike at the flourishing weeds, insofar as both are ultimate human reality. That's the part I was focusing on. Tia wants to speak.

[56:24]

It reminds me of a quote he said at the beginning of my day, one that came up in my head, about when he says, in that little fascicle about attachment and non-attachment, there's a line in it that says something like, something like, if, something like, Buddha's attachment is non-attachment, it's okay, attachment is okay as long as it's Buddha's attachment. Do you know the line? No. It's in Zenmai Beginner's Mind. In Zenmai Beginner's Mind it's called attachment and non-attachment. But what I was thinking, what made me think about it is that, in the midst of duality, there seems to be, perhaps this indicates, there's a possibility of non-duality in the midst of duality. Yes. Right. And so, we would be just regular, deluded, whatever. Yes. But, in some way,

[57:29]

maybe even if we're not free of it, even if we're completely in pain, still there's some, if it's non-realistic, and if you're completely experiencing it physically maybe, and not conceptually, there's freedom there. Yes. And even experiencing conceptually. And even experiencing, maybe awareness of that. Yes. It's like the koan about sun-faced Buddhas, moon-faced Buddhas. If you're sick, be a sick Buddha. If you're well, be a well Buddha. If you're enlightened, be an enlightened Buddha. If you're deluded, be a deluded Buddha. If you're attached, be an attached Buddha. Yes. Yes. Yes. But the word awareness is important, but she didn't use it. Be aware of it. Be complete. Yes. Sure. Yes. Yes. Bring that. Yes. Yes. I think... See, this is where... See, I think that we're going to struggle with this, and that's why I say we should struggle with it, because we're going to want to be able to have something there that we can hold on to.

[58:36]

We want to say that there's something to this. We don't want to give it up, you know? In other words, I think that we want Dhyanjaya Koan to be something, right? And not the same as everything else. But it is. I mean, it includes even a total affirmation of complete ignorance and suffering. This is the part that I find so marvelous about it, you know? So, practically speaking, what about it? Well, what about it is that one could see the nobility and really appreciate, you know, delusion and confusion and hatred and so on and so on, which I think is necessary to have compassion for ourselves and others, is to actually be able to see the worst of humanity as wonderful, as Buddha.

[59:42]

I think it's necessary, you know, because otherwise, you know, we have an idea that Buddha looks like this and not like that. And in Stage 1... And don't forget, Bokksan says all these stages are Dhyanjaya Koan. In Stage 1, we do see that. We see this is bad, and we've got to get away from bad over here to good, you know? So that needs to be... That step or that attitude can't be eliminated. On the other hand, in this one, we need to be able to appreciate absolutely everything, including attachment and affliction and all this stuff, as total manifestation of Buddhadharma, which is the only way that you can really... Ruth was bringing up the use of the word love before in the Judeo-Christian use of the word love. Love is a very totally positive, all-inclusive emotion. And this would be love, because you could see even, you know, the terrible murderer and the monstrous human being

[60:46]

who has committed horrible atrocities and has no remorse, you know, that kind of a very rare person as being Buddha. That would be the real challenge. But one's love would have to extend to that degree in order to appreciate this line. I think that's the sort of psychological or practical application of it, which is very important, because we have to turn that same kind of love to ourselves and our own shortcomings and people that we see around us, because there's always a challenge of encountering a situation, a person, or something within ourselves that, you know, is unworkable, seems unworkable, is unworkable. And then we have to accept that too. So that's how I understand this line. Yes, Karen? I just find that really healing to take that in, because when I'm feeling that I'm seeing the worst in myself, I think I've always had this part of myself watching that

[61:50]

and thinking that, you know, that was somehow not spiritual and I was really blowing it. And you are blowing it in a way when you're doing that, but this is sort of a healing way of embracing it. Yeah. So right, they're all Ginja Koans, so you are blowing it. That's affirmed. You're blowing it, and it's perfect. And those things are simultaneously true. And I think it would be both appreciated. So, that's right. Roberta? To me, there's a really beautiful simplicity in this last stage, this last paragraph, and I don't think it's an accident that it's the shortest one. And in some ways, even though it's like coming back to this very mundane thing, I've had all this achievement and still there are blossoms falling, and you need something, there's like a level of nearness permeating it that I think is really important because I think in an earlier stage when you're much less skillful, you're attaching and grasping,

[62:52]

but you don't see what you're doing. You don't see the cosmos, so the blossoms are falling, and you just think that everyone is being unfair to you, and the weeds spread, and you just think that there's a plot against you. You can't hold on this. You're revealing your inner life to me. Just kidding. So, I mean, here, in a way, it was a very advanced level because you're saying, yes, I'm attached, but right away, and I think that's almost the pain. If you practice more right away, you start seeing what you're doing, and then it starts becoming more transparent because you see the weeds spreading, the blossoms falling, but it's like right there, it's the next cause. It's not even a subject or object. It's just a band right in front of you. Like Karen said, you see that you're blowing it, and right away, that takes all the steam out of it. So I think, actually, he is talking about quite an advanced realization that you can keep choosing to do these things,

[63:55]

but you see that you're doing it. Yeah. What you say reminds me of what I was saying the other night at the Dharma Talk, quoting Stephen Levine. How do you say his name? Levine? Stephen Levine. Stephen Levine, where he was saying, moving from my pain to the pain. So, the big difference there, it's the same thing. So that when one sees one's own attachment and confusion and so on as the attachment and confusion of the whole world. So that's a different sense of it, a different feeling, when it's not me. To add perhaps to what you were saying,

[64:58]

I think, yes, it's the perfect question. Because even though I know that sometimes we mean the greater language, we mean despite, it also means beyond, not yet. And there's a quality to that, to that aspect of the word, that I think works perfectly with the simplicity of this statement, which is also a statement of what is. Yet there's a beyondness or a transcendence to recognize. It seems like Dogen in these four sentences

[66:00]

confuses the self. You read the first sentence and you take this position. The self kind of grabs that first sentence. And then you read the second sentence and the self has to move over and occupy the second sentence, in a different place than the first sentence. And then it has to move again. And the third sentence seems to be located someplace else. It seems like he's constantly shifting the perspective so you can't stay anywhere. At each place you think you're there. And then the fourth is, you know, an insult on injury. I did feel a sense of liberation in that fourth one. But then you think, well, yeah, that's... So you're still... So you're attached to that. I think Yoshitani says that these are like... The teacher gives you the first sentence as a practice.

[67:03]

And then later on he may give you the second sentence when he thinks you got attached enough to the first sentence. And each one is a teaching that the teacher thinks you're ready for. When you read Abbey's last sentence, you were ready for that. Right, exactly. So the idea of using... You could use each sentence as a koan. Somebody could practice with each sentence and then move through. Stuart? Well, two things. One was when Roberta pointed out how short and simple the final statement was, I realized that there is a kind of wonderful progression in this, you know. It begins as a kind of catechism and then a denial, then a complete paradox and finally results into poetry. Also, I wanted to make a confession

[68:06]

that I always read this fourth line differently. I read it as a kind of gloss on the situation, clarifying the difference between what happens in sentence one and sentence two and what happens in sentence three. In sentence three, there is an embracing of the world's... Not only the world of one, in which everything is embraced, but also the world of distinction. And pointing out, though, that there's a difference between being able to embrace that world, the leaping clear of the many and the one, and being stuck in seeming distinction. That if we can leap clear, we can embrace the many and the one without causing blossoms to fall

[69:08]

and weeds to spread, which sounds like a description of karma. That is to say, we can participate in the world on the basis of the Buddha way, having leapt clear, without creating good and bad karma. That's it. Yeah. What's your confession? Well, the thing about this fascicle is that... And this is the thing about Dogen's writing, particularly in a passage like this, and recently we had a translation conference, we were discussing this kind of thing, that I have no doubt in my mind that that reading that you just gave, which is different from the one we were discussing here, is also there in the text and also part of what Dogen means. I have no doubt about that. But when you translate something like this, you make a choice, because you can't... That's why translation is translation,

[70:09]

because translation means you're going to make a choice among the numerous meanings that are inherent in a particular expression in a particular language. You're going to choose one, or if you're lucky, more than one, that you can bring across to another language and leave behind all the others, because there's no way. The only translation of Dogen that would really be accurate would be to copy the same words in Japanese, then it would be accurate. But anything short of that is going to leave out a lot. And this is always true anyway. It's more true with poetry, poetic language, than with ordinary language. And it's even more true with Dogen's language, which is a kind of a very contemporary, actually, combination of philosophical and poetic language. But you wouldn't even know, if Dogen was talking right here and right now, we'd all have different thinkings about what he was saying. That's right. You're a philosopher from the beginning.

[71:11]

Translation is interpretation. Right. Translation is interpretation. I would think that as a dutiful translation, your obligation is to try and make it as a... or at least try and respond to all the different implications you think that Dogen was trying to communicate. But then you have the problem of... The language. Yeah, then somebody says, well, make it literal, as literal as possible. But then if you make it literal, you could be missing the implications. And so you want to make it not so literal so that you can put the implications in, and then that's not right either. So it's really a problem. Translating is really a hard problem. You consider the meaning. Yeah, everything. The connotations and so on. I would feel bad about asking another question about this, but Waddell says that if we figure out these first four lines, we've pretty much got the essence of this. It says in the third line here... I mean, I'm interpreting this in terms of

[72:14]

different sort of levels of self-relationship with reality. And the third, I guess, is where you're getting sort of the basic destruction of self. And it talks about leaving clear of the many and the one, which is completely different than the translations in the other two. Can you talk about just that, what's implied by the meaning of the one, which I notice has an asterisk, no explanation for it. It's in the back of the book. Well, like I was saying earlier, I think the words in Japanese don't actually say many and one, they refer to fullness and lack. And the issue in translation, in looking at that line, is whether or not many and one, or fullness and lack, refer to the previous two lines or not. Yeah, it seems like it's possible. You could take them as not referring to those first two lines. You could take them as being another...

[73:16]

He's making another statement now that doesn't refer to those first two statements. Let me actually, in response to what you're saying, redo this translation here, which is very, very interpretive, but it handles this issue in a totally different way. Which I think, you could see how you could come up with this translation based on thinking of fullness and lack as being raising another issue and not referring to those first two sentences. So, why don't you look at whatever translation you have there. Keep your eyes on that. I'll read it very slowly so that you can compare each sentence with what I'm reading. And interpretive means they're adding a lot of words that aren't necessarily there to make it clear, you know, from a point of their point of view. So,

[74:17]

the first sentence reads, In that period of time, when Buddhas give voice to the teachings on existence in all its variety, there is talk of delusion and enlightenment, of practice and training, of birth, of death, of Buddhas, of ordinary beings. In that period of time, when it is no longer relevant, this is the second sentence, in that period of time, when it is no longer relevant to speak of an I, I mean, the pronoun I, along with its whole universe, there is no delusion or enlightenment, no Buddhas or ordinary beings, no being born and no extinction.

[75:22]

Because the path to Buddhahood naturally springs from a feeling that there is too much of one thing and not enough of another, there is birth and extinction, there is delusion and enlightenment, there is ordinary beings and Buddhas. Yet, even though this is the way things are, still, we feel regret at a blossom's falling and loathe to see the weeds envelop everything. I had to mess it all up. That's really nice. Because the path to Buddhahood naturally springs forth from a feeling that there is too much of one thing and not enough of another, by which I understand that to mean there is too much of suffering and confusion and not enough enlightenment. Because the path to Buddhahood

[76:33]

naturally springs from this feeling that we have, there is birth and extinction, there is delusion and enlightenment, there is ordinary beings and Buddhas. So, in this reading, we're not going, it's not as elegant, sort of, structurally. It's not an ascending path. I mean, we have to understand, to begin with, that the ascending path is not really an ascending path, that these stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not stages 1, 2, 3 and 4, but each one simultaneously includes all the others. But given that, structurally, it appears as an ascending path. In this case, it doesn't. This third step is not following on the other two. And I personally don't think that, I think that, in terms of practice, there's something to this. But I actually think that it's a misreading of the text, because I think, I've done a lot of work with Dogon, you know, over 25, I wrote my master's thesis on Dogon 25 years ago, so I've read a lot of Dogon.

[77:33]

And I imagine, and I'm sure I'm wrong, like almost everything else that I imagine, but I'm convinced anyway, that I have a feeling for Dogon's use of language. You know, which is ridiculous for me to have such a feeling, since I don't read Japanese, but that's okay. Poetic license. I feel that I, so I feel, oftentimes I feel very confident, you know, again, I hasten to say, foolishly, no doubt, very confident that I have an idea about the way the language moves. And so I'm pretty sure that Dogon wrote this with that sense of, you know, kind of the, almost like the visual, almost a visual relationship between the words. And I don't think that he was meandering in the way that this is, you know, hitting different points. So I'm pretty sure that this isn't, isn't true, isn't accurate to the text,

[78:34]

or true to the text. However, having said that, of course, whether or not it is, is pretty unimportant, actually. Because the only purpose of reading a text like this is that we would come to a better understanding of our own path and our own practice. And so, if somebody were to translate it in a way that was almost entirely wrong, and yet give us a very good insight into our process and our path, that would be valuable. So that bad translations of Dogon might be just fine. You know, so I don't mind. I used to, I changed on this point, you know, I used to, there's one translation that's notoriously bad, you know, and interpreted and so on, which, so all of those of us who were Dogon purists would turn up our nose at this translation. How could they? They did it too fast. But after many years, I began to really like that translation because it does make choices and interprets, and it interprets according to the Soto Zen tradition, which is 700 years long after Dogon.

[79:37]

Yeah, Nishiyama and Stevens' translation. They translated Gensho Kōen as well as everything else in Shobo Gensō. But now I like that translation because in fact they give you a much more nailed down and clear interpretation of what Dogon says. It's an interpretation that's 700 years old, you know, in the Soto school. So that's not a bad thing. So there's a whole, and that's, like I said, that's what's fascinating about a religious text. The only two requirements are that it be over 500 years old and in a foreign language. And if it's over 500 years old and in a foreign language, then you can really get a lot of good out of it, you know, because then you don't know what it means and you have to struggle and have conversations like this, which you wouldn't have, you know, if you read, like, you know, a John Grisham novel. You don't sit around with 15, 20 people for an entire weekend discussing the first paragraph in a John Grisham novel because that would be ridiculous. Although the truth of the matter is

[80:41]

that you probably could and get just as much out of it. Well, maybe James Joyce. So there's a cultural studies department. Yeah, that's right. I was going to say, in the universities they do exactly that. Norman, connecting to the question of the issue I raised last night and the comment you just made about even what you would consider a bad translation or interpretation in what I was thinking and could be also in other situations for other people that in times when there's a great conflict that you would consider difficult to deal with, or as one prominent example of getting trashed in an article in the press for the work you're doing and the way it's being done, that looking at that to categorize it as bad, to look again

[81:42]

and say, this is someone's interpretation of the situation and the voices they have heard and what they chose to put in there, and while we might consider it bad and destructive to the process, if we look at that and take in the other positions that have gotten through to somebody to write it that way, it would be a learning of what adjustments or responses or changes could be made to reconcile the dispute. Yeah, and also to study our own inner reactions apart from whatever the issues are or aren't, or right or wrong, that one would study one's own to be as present as possible with what's arising in one's own heart and completely there with it

[82:43]

as Genjo Kōan and thereby purifying and deepening our inner life and our relationship to ourself, this would also be part of it. So there's two levels of it. There's the practical level on which we must act and deal with issues, and then there's our inner relationship to something like that, and we need to always be aware of both levels. And you're right that then something that's negative and a cause for, you know, the feeling, oh no, why did this have to happen? Which is of course a fruitless... We can only appreciate that as human beings we would have such a thought. But to exercise that thought for too long would be not so such a great thing, you know, because it doesn't get us anywhere. This is now the situation, and how can we use this now to improve on a level of

[83:44]

issues and activities to improve? How can we use this criticism to improve the situation? And on the issue of our inner life, how do we understand our lives and how do we react to criticism? How can we become more free in our reaction to criticism and so on? And that's the challenge for us as practitioners, and you have to work on both levels. You can't say, well it doesn't matter what the issues are, I'm only looking at my inner life, or the reverse would also be inappropriate. And this is all very much, you know, how Dogen wants us to orient ourselves in terms of Genjo Koan, because he says, you know, here, later on, discrimination is Genjo Koan. Issues and things in the world, and non-discrimination is Genjo Koan. Being with the emotions, without judgment, is also Genjo Koan. So both. Let me, before we have many more comments, let me give you a little comment here from, if I can find, just go along here with the

[84:44]

very focused on this comment. But first let me see if I wrote anything down that's useful. Grasshoppers and dogs under cherry blossoms. If I can find it. Now this is fun. He says, for what reason do flowers fall? Ordinarily when we have Pardon about the dogs. Ordinarily when we have love and attachment, we say, oh beautiful, I want to keep them in bloom forever. Then flowers fall. How do weeds spread? They spread from the feeling of aversion. We say, oh, that's disturbing. Here they come again. In this way, falling and blooming arise from love and hate. Originally there is no falling or blooming. You say that you dislike weeds, but farmers use it for fertilizer. So this is like your thing, right?

[85:45]

You dislike having these things being written in the paper, but you use it for fertilizer. Yeah, it's weeds, but you use it for fertilizer. They wish for more and more weeds. The farmers like weeds. For them, weeds are not weeds. Men, women, young and old, go on a spree after viewing cherry blossoms at Ueno or at Mukojima, which are apparently popular. Do you know these places? Popular places for viewing cherry blossoms it would seem. But dogs, that's the dog part, but dogs lie underneath the trees every day and thinking nothing of it. They are busy looking for leftovers under the trees. For those who do not fall into the duality of love and hate, there is no blooming or falling. For grasshoppers, weeds are their world. When weeds spread, they feel comfortable having a new living room. When the frost in the desolate winter season kills the grass, the grasshoppers

[86:46]

think that their Buddha hall is destroyed. They think, this Buddha hall is crushed and needs to be restored. Look at this. Insects do not think that weeds are in the way. For those who like it, spreading is not a problem. Everything is like this. What is called blooming and what is called falling are based on ordinary views. The fact is, falling and blooming are all Genjo Koan. And there is not a bit of self. By looking with correct eyes, falling and blooming are true marks of flowers and weeds. Anyway, that's pretty good. Does anybody have, do you have the cook version of the text? I don't know which one I have at home. I can bring it. We'll bring it in later. Let's see, maybe we can read, just to read one more translation, then we'll go back to more discussion. If there's no more discussion, let's see what... And again, you can look at one of your

[87:49]

translations, and I'll read it slowly so that you can compare on a word-by-word basis. When all things are Buddha teachings, then there is illusion and enlightenment, there is cultivation of practice, there is birth, there is death, there are Buddhas, there are sentient beings. When myriad things are all not-self, there is no delusion, no enlightenment, no Buddhas, no sentient beings, no birth, no death. Because the Buddha way originally sprang forth from abundance and paucity, there is birth and death, illusion and enlightenment, sentient beings and Buddhas. And again, he's not connecting that line with the other two

[88:51]

in the same way. Moreover, though this is so, flowers fall when we cling to them, and weeds only grow when we dislike them. What does he mean by abundance and paucity, then, if he's not referring back to either of the first two? What is he referring to, the Buddha way before, now, or something? You know, it's hard to see what, you know, if you were to say, you know, if you thought this was the... It's hard to say. It's very similar in nature to the first one you read. Say that again? It seems like his translation of the third line is very similar to the first that you just read. You mean the one I just read out of this book? Yeah, it is. Using fullness and lack, abundance and paucity, yeah. Except that here, he... The thing that's interesting

[89:52]

about this translation is that this is very much written from the perspective of Soto Zen trainees, so it's always written from the perspective of someone who's training in Soto Zen, so it says the Buddha way begins from our feeling of that something is missing, and we want to go towards something. Here it just says, the Buddha way springs from abundance and lack as concepts, not as something that we feel or understand. So it would be hard... I wouldn't know what to think about. I mean, I think that in a case like this, when I, as a practitioner, when I translate something, I'm thinking of the words of the text, but I'm also thinking of the meaning of it for practitioners. I have the feeling that here, clearly, he's just looking at the words and translating what he believes the words to be. He doesn't think about, OK, now what does this have to do with somebody on the path? That's my feeling. But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

[90:53]

Do you have a reading of it? I have a gloss for this terminology. This is a kind of a basic expression, a diagnostic expression of illness in medical medicine. Oh, that helps. Fundamental ways of looking at how do you... Like an imbalance or something. Is there too much or too little? I see. So, and I think that kind of terminology would have been well known to Dogen. Of course, yeah. Oh, that really helps, actually, yeah. Maybe Cleary knows that, too, from his Chinese studies. And, of course, then that only magnifies and makes more full the causes reading of it. Because then one in many in the first sentence and the second sentence are seen as fullness and lack and imbalance in the first and second sentence

[91:54]

becomes a cause of illness and problem, right? So that's very helpful, thank you. That's really good. Actually, I was thinking more of that... Actually, I was thinking more of that... ...

[92:06]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ