I vow to face the truth with love till I confess the words. Good evening. One thing that I just wanted to say in case we had some idea that Tozan was making all this up, it's just Mahayana Buddhism has filtered through Tozan's glasses, filtered through

[01:06]

his understanding to make it available and easy to understand. And so on page 37, this has to, the Cleary translation says, ìNaturally real yet inconceivable, it is not within the province of delusion or enlightenment.î And ìitî, we're talking about ìitî, and ìitî means probably the mirror. ìNaturally real yet subtle, not in confusion or enlightenment. Wonderful is the eternal reality beyond delusion and enlightenment.

[02:09]

Genuine and wonderful, it is not subject to delusion or enlightenment. True nature is inconceivable, it has nothing to do with delusion or enlightenment. Its purity and unchangeability is wonderful, it belongs neither to delusion or enlightenment.î So here we're talking about, as you can see, everybody translates this fairly, the meaning is pretty clear in all the translations. We think of enlightenment as the opposite of delusion, or we think of enlightenment in contrast to delusion, but here the text is saying this is beyond, true enlightenment is beyond enlightenment, the duality of enlightenment and delusion. If you say, ìI was deluded and now I'm enlightened,î that's dualistic understanding. So we say Zazen is enlightened activity, we sit in Zazen in the midst of enlightenment,

[03:21]

but you can also say when you sit Zazen, you're sitting Zazen in the midst of duality, in the midst of delusion, you're sitting right in the middle of your delusion. So how is that solved? We say Buddha nature, Buddha nature is the same thing as the mirror, only when we say Buddha nature, we talk about it in a different way, when we talk about the mirror, we talk about something reflecting, when we talk about Buddha nature, we talk about something that is. The usual interpretation of Buddha nature is that everyone has Buddha nature, but this is the way it appears in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, all beings have Buddha nature.

[04:22]

There was a time in Buddhist understanding when there was the idea that there were people who didn't have Buddha nature, and you can understand why, sometimes you just think about certain people, they just don't have Buddha nature. But the Mahaparinirvana Sutra said, all beings without exception have Buddha nature, and Dogen radicalized that, and he said, all beings are Buddha nature. So if you say beings have Buddha nature, that's dualistic, because you're talking about beings that have something. So when you say all beings are Buddha nature, it means that each being is an expression of Buddha nature, each being is an individual expression of Buddha nature.

[05:27]

So Buddha nature expresses itself as forms, emptiness is form, form is emptiness. So all beings are expressions of Buddha nature. That's why all beings can be saved, so to speak. Salvation is open to all beings. Buddhism is a religion of salvation, and they even have a messiah, Buddhists have a messiah called Maitreya. Maitreya is messiah, and there are a lot of parallels in this way in religion. And so Buddhism is a religion of salvation. And we say it all the time, I vow to save all sentient beings, right? So you are Maitreya.

[06:29]

Religions are always, what does that say? It doesn't say Maitreya. It says, we think of some persona that's going to be Maitreya, some nirmanakaya, we think that there will be a nirmanakaya Maitreya. Maybe, I mean, yeah, but if you look at it another way, we say in Buddhism that, and this is what Buddha said, apparently, you have to find your own salvation.

[07:37]

Each person should seek their own salvation. Salvation from what? From suffering and delusion, of course. From delusion, meaning wrong understanding of what birth and death is about, and suffering because of that. So to find our salvation means to discover our true self, our Buddha nature, and to realize the nature of transiency, and the nature of suffering, and the nature of clinging, and the nature of attachment, and the nature of freedom. So, yes?

[08:40]

So, each person's salvation is unique to their, each person has their own way of salvation? You have to speak a little louder. How can we know how to save all beings when each person's salvation is different? Yeah, that's a good point. So, each person has to find their own salvation, and yet, we say, I vow to save all sentient beings, right? So that's your koan. You didn't think Buddhism was easy, did you? It doesn't mean that I personally am going to save all sentient beings. That's not what it means. It means we express the desire for all beings to be saved. That's what that means. We express the desire for all beings to be saved, and we express the desire to help them do that.

[09:44]

So, in the new meal chat we say, free all beings, right? I vow to free all beings. So, you go around with your Dharma scissors and cut their bonds so that they can find their own salvation. It's just a desire which is a very altruistic desire. But you shouldn't take it literally. You don't take these things literally. Otherwise you say, gosh, how am I going to do that? The people I'm going to save are already dying while I'm talking. Thousands and thousands of people are falling off the face of the earth while you're sitting there looking at me. So, how are you going to save them? Although Buddhism is impossible to complete,

[10:51]

we don't try to make it that difficult. Just going back to the idea of Buddha nature, I think you were reading somewhere that some schools of Buddhism don't either accept that idea or see it in the same... I mean, is there something controversial about Buddha nature? There's nothing controversial about Buddha nature. It's just that there are different schools of Buddhism. So Buddha nature as a concept came forth with the Mahayana. Let me use the word Hinayana not as applying to any special school of Buddhism, but as an attitude. So the Hinayana schools, or Hinayana Buddhists,

[11:51]

don't particularly line up with Mahayana thinking and Mahayana understanding. Even the Mahayana understanding has been around since the beginning of Buddhism. We think that there are the Theravada schools... Well, actually, there were 18 schools of Buddhism up until... well, for hundreds of years, there were at least 18 schools of Buddhism that we can identify. And they all had different ideas about what the Dharma was. Each school had a different idea, and there were some very prominent schools that had very fixed and strong ideas, and these schools would have controversies with each other for hundreds of years. And then around the first century with Nagarjuna...

[13:05]

Nagarjuna is called the Dharma... the ancestor who turned the second wheel of the Dharma. Buddha turned the first wheel of the Dharma, and then Nagarjuna in the first century turned the second wheel of the Dharma with the Prajnaparamita Sutras. We chant the Heart Sutra, but the Heart Sutra is only a very small sutra within the Prajnaparamita collection of sutras. So there's the Prajnaparamita in 25,000 lines, there's the Prajnaparamita in 100,000 lines, Prajnaparamita in one letter, and so forth. So the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra are kind of like complementary sutras that are about the same length, more or less. So the Heart Sutra is a Mahayana Sutra which, if you study it, you'll see that

[14:08]

it makes a comment on all the old ways of thinking that came before it. And the second turning of the wheel means that it expresses the non-dualistic understanding of Buddhadharma. And there's the Four Noble Truths, and all the main doctrines of Buddhism are included in the Heart Sutra. And no this, no this, no this, meaning non-dualism, to understand it in a non-dualistic way, to understand Buddhism in a non-dualistic way. And so the Mahayana developed out of that. There are other Mahayana Sutras too, of course, but Prajnaparamita specifically, and the Lotus Sutra also criticizes those old ways of understanding.

[15:08]

Although some of the doctrines of the old schools, you can see them appearing in the Mahayana literature, the Mahayana literature kind of coalesced. And this Mahayana understanding is pretty much shared by all the Mahayana schools of Buddhism, even though their outlook is a little different. So Buddha nature is a very fundamental understanding in Mahayana Buddhism. There may be some Buddhists from the old schools, or schools that didn't go along with Mahayana, who may not think in terms of Buddha nature. Some do, but you don't hear them expressing themselves that way.

[16:11]

Yeah? Yes? You say something with the difference on how Buddha's enlightenment, how he said all beings are enlightened, they just don't realize it? Well, he said a lot of things, nobody knows exactly what he said. Right, but isn't that debatable, that premise as far as Buddha nature, and not everyone having it? Not everyone would express it that way. How does one other way? Well, some school would say, there's delusion, and then you work to enlightenment. Mahayana, there are schools of Mahayana which, especially Zen school, which says, because enlightenment is your nature, you can be enlightened. You're not adding enlightenment to something. You're not, you know,

[17:16]

creating an enlightenment. You're allowing your true nature to come forth unhindered, which is called enlightenment. So Maitreya, it is, you know, we also, each one of us is Maitreya, because we all have, each one of us has the nature to save ourselves. So Maitreya is, you know, is in each one of us. It simply, and our practice brings that forth. I just read recently Thich Nhat Hanh saying that a community is Maitreya. You can think of a community as Maitreya, not just some person.

[18:19]

So Maitreya is the embodiment of salvation, attitude, or put into practice. So I agree with all that. I think that Maitreya is right here, you know, just within our practice. So enlightenment is beyond the duality of enlightenment and delusion. We can speak of enlightenment in different ways. And we do speak of enlightenment in a lot of different ways. You can speak of it dualistically, or you can speak about it non-dualistically. But when you speak about it dualistically, you're thinking about it in opposition to delusion. But that's misleading, because when you realize

[19:26]

your own enlightenment, you realize that it's not something to hang on to. It's not something for you. It's not a flash card. It's like you realize your nature, and you realize that if you cling to that, you're just holding on to... You know, Suzuki Roshi used to talk about the person who put the mark on the boat. Now you're out in the sea, you know, and you want to come back to the same place tomorrow, so he put a mark on the boat. Or the rabbit, you know, the farmer, or the hunter, went out to hunt for a rabbit. And while he was staying there, next to a stump where the tree had been cut off, and this rabbit ran out of the woods and ran right into the stump, killed himself. So the hunter, you know,

[20:28]

stood there the next day, hoping that another rabbit would come out, and ran into the stump. So anyway, your enlightenment experience, you know, is your wonderful enlightenment experience, and you don't think about your delusion within your enlightenment experience. But if you hold on to that enlightenment experience, that's delusion. So we have enlightenment experiences all the time, you know. All the time you're having enlightenment experiences. Just let them go into the sea of... Because enlightenment is beyond enlightenment and delusion. Problem is, if we hang on to an enlightenment experience, then we think the next day, or when it's fading out, we think, God, you know,

[21:28]

this is pretty crummy. I'm waiting for the next enlightenment experience. How can I make that return? And then you forget all about where you are. So, enlightenment experiences, this is exactly where I am, with this. Shit. Yes. You get enlightened on the toilet. A friend of mine sat on a machine once, and he had this, like, what do you call it, an awakening experience, and he said it was just fantastic, and he wanted to tell a practice leader about it. And this practice leader said, Master Dogen didn't really write about satori's very much. He said he wanted to see you then. And he walked in the room, and he could tell what was going on, and he said, excellent, keep going. That's all.

[22:31]

Keep going. Excellent. So, yes. So, how would you speak about, you said, you could speak about enlightenment dualistically and non-dualistically. How would you speak about it? Better not to speak about it at all. So you can't speak about it non-dualistically. Well, the thing is, you see, in Buddhism, especially in Zen, we use dualistic words to express non-duality. That's why Zen is so confusing. If you hang on to the words, you're lost. Because the words don't say what they mean, dualistically. So, does the dog have Buddha nature? Wu. Well, Wu means no, right? Well, is that right or wrong?

[23:34]

What do you think about the dog? If all beings have Buddha nature, if all beings, if all created things are Buddha nature, what about the dog? Is it a nonsensical question? No, not a nonsensical... That's because you're thinking dualistically. In dualistic thinking, you think it's a nonsensical question because no is no and yes is yes. In a non-dualistic understanding, no includes yes. Yes includes no. You include me. I include you. You making me and I'm making you. At this moment. Dualistically, you're sitting over there and I'm sitting over here. Non-dualistically, it's because you're there, I'm here. And because I'm here, you're there. So how does one move through the day

[24:38]

practicing that? That's the koan. That's what you're supposed to be working with. If I tell you, you won't be working at it yourself. And you say, oh, I know now. How the heck would we say that? So, naturally real yet inconceivable is not within the province of delusion or enlightenment. This is the fifth rank, Tozan's fifth rank, beyond delusion and enlightenment. So, Could you say a few words about presence? Two words about? Presence. Presence? Is that what you said? Two words? A few words. Oh, a few words. Be present.

[25:40]

If the thought is present, does it have to be enlightened? No. If it's present, does it have to be enlightened? Ask me again. If the thought has a state of consciousness where it is present, then does it have to be enlightened? Yes. Ask me again. If the thought has a state of consciousness, The same question. Yes. I'll ask you again. If the thought has a state of consciousness where it is present, does it have to be enlightened? No. Just take your pick. So, presence doesn't really have to be enlightened? Just take your pick. You can say either one. Either way. Either one is okay.

[26:48]

So, does it matter if it's deluded? No. Does it matter if it's present? No. It really matters if you're deluded by a yes and no. Beyond delusion? Beyond delusion. Because we're using a dualistic term to express non-duality. You can use a dualistic term to express duality, but in Zen we use a dualistic word to express non-duality. You have to understand that. When you read koans, you have to understand that the teachers are using dualistic terms to express non-duality. That's why they seem confusing. And when you let go of clinging to dualistic thinking,

[27:53]

it will become apparent what the meaning is. You're still clinging. You're still clinging. You have to be able to let go of that idea about yes and no as a duality. Keep asking that question. Thank you. For the next page, page 38. So on this page,

[29:02]

this is talking about it shining. It is shining. Starting at the top, with causal conditions, time and season, quiescently it shines forth. It shines bright. What did you say? Quiescently. Quiescently. Yes, that's right. Quiescently. Thank you. With causal conditions, time and season, quiescently it shines forth. It is shining forth. So within causes and conditions it's shining forth is the meaning. He says with causal conditions. I think what he means is within causal conditions. Under the right conditions,

[30:05]

at the right time, it shines bright in serene tranquility. With concurrent cause and time prevailing, it will appear both bright and still. Bright and still it appears as causes and conditions. It does not shine through causes and conditions. It appears as causes and conditions. Because it is causes and conditions. To say it shines through is dualistic, because there's it, and whatever is shining through, those are two different things. But it shines as it's the causes and conditions nature shining. So that's why it's so difficult, because we think in dualistic terms, we're always dividing things into

[31:08]

dualistic terms, always. And we have to do that in order to identify things, at least we think we do, and we do. So it's not that there's something wrong with dualistic thinking, it's just that it's unless we understand non-dualistic thinking, then dualistic thinking is delusion. If we understand non-dualistic thinking, then dualistic thinking is also enlightenment. So there is an idea that we called Soto Zen, silent illumination, practice of silent illumination. So the practice of silent illumination is pretty ancient, but in historical terms, the term silent illumination

[32:12]

was popularized by Hang Zhou in around the 12th century, and the Rinzai school kind of criticized the Soto school as practicing silent illumination, and characterized by rice bags sitting in a row, or dead trees. But this was a misconception of Soto Zen, as you know. Anyway, but silent illumination is definitely our practice, and it was that

[33:27]

Doge didn't use the word silent illumination, he used the word shikantaza, by sitting. And Hang Zhou, do you know the book called Cultivating the Empty Field? It's wonderful poetry, and his Zazen admonitions, just incredibly wonderful. So if you haven't read that, you should read it, and then you'll understand the background of silent illumination Zen. Called Cultivating the Empty Field, Dan Leighton and the Chinese man, scholar, translated it. But this is not talking about silent illumination,

[34:35]

even though it seems like it is, because the characters are not the same. But it is talking about illumination, anyway. It's talking about illumination, but it's not talking specifically about the practice of silent illumination. So there's some confusion here. Even I fell for it. But I did say, in the realm of dependent co-arising, the mirror always shines through all of our activity. I like that. There, it says MW. That's me. So it's silently illuminating, but not silent illumination, specifically. In other words, it's not talking about sitting

[35:43]

Zazen. It's talking about just the nature of things. If you look around you, you'll see that all these people are silently illuminating. It's just a fact. Yes, it's true. Yeah, what did you want to say? I'm not sure I understand what you said there, in the realm of dependent co-arising, the mirror always shines through all of our activity. I'm not sure exactly where you are. Oh, right, where your words are, on the page, MW? Mm-hmm. Yeah, earlier you said that you didn't like this one translation that said it shines like shines through causes and conditions because that's realistic. Yeah. How's what you're saying? They're different from that. Yeah. That's not different. That's what I said. I didn't like it. I like what I said.

[36:46]

I didn't like the way he said it. I like the way I said it. In other words, like, you know, I changed my mind, and I like the way he said it, too. It's just a little subtlety, that's all. A little subtlety. But where it says FW, that's also where we translated it. Bright and still, it appears as causes and conditions. Time and occasion. It appears as that. So, that's a little more inclusive, a little less dualistic. But then, I wrote something else that says, everything is Buddha nature. That's why we need to have reverence and respect for things.

[37:48]

We bow to the pillar, and we bow to dogs and cats, and this is Tozan's mirror. Wherever I turn, I see Buddha nature. Some of these translations, I get the feeling that they're saying, under certain conditions, the illumination is the same always. Yeah, so I don't understand the under certain conditions. But I can see why they mean that. They may mean that sometimes you realize it, and sometimes you don't. And under certain conditions, you realize it. But it's like the sun is always in the sky, or the moon is always in the sky, but you don't always see it. So, it seems like there's kind of three options here. One, you can say that it shines through causes and conditions. You can say that it is causes and conditions. And, I'm sorry, what was the one you just said?

[38:54]

Always in the sky. Oh, yeah, under certain causes and conditions, you can see it. So, I don't know. Can you say something? Are they all kind of right? I think, yeah, I think that it's true that you can see it in three different ways. Because you can see it as, like Richard said, sometimes you see it and sometimes you don't, even though it's there. And the other way of saying it is that it's always there, shining through conditions, whether you see it or not. So, there are different ways of viewing it, different ways of talking about it or perceiving it. So, should we look for it? You should look at it. The mind or the eye? You should look at Buddha nature. Don't look for it. Look at it. Because if you look for it, you think it's somewhere else than where you're looking.

[40:03]

One way of saying it's a metaphor and the other way not, illuminating silently and silently. Can you speak up a little bit? Speak a little louder. Is one of these a metaphor and one of them not a metaphor? Like a metaphor for understanding something, a mental or a spiritual sense of things in our mind versus actually seeing it. Directly seeing. Yeah, I think that's there too. I think that's there too. There's one that says causes and conditions right at this moment shine completely in the silence. That's interesting. And then another one says at each time and condition it quietly shines. So that means it's always shining, whether you see it shining or not.

[41:19]

So, we say reality is right in front of our eyes all the time. It's always there to be seen. But we don't see it. But we do see it. We just don't recognize that that's what we're seeing. Yes. The second two, the time, moment, opportunity, occasion. Second two? The second two, the third and fourth characters. Oh, characters. It sounds like it's really this. Like, you know, bamboo, not, or no, but this, this very thing. It's it, this particular manifestation. Any and all. Right. Any and all. Through all manifestations it's shining. Know what you're saying? Yeah. Well, I think that's the sense of it. Through all, through every manifestation it's shining. And even though it's not perceived, it's seen. Yeah.

[42:23]

But not necessarily enlightened. We just don't know what we see. So, you know, the difference between enlightenment and delusion is that we're looking at the same thing. And when we see it with a deluded mind, we see it one way. When we see it with an enlightened mind, we see it another way. But it's the same thing we're looking at. And it's the same, but it's not the same consciousness. We'll get into that a little later, because when we start looking at Hakuin, we take a look at consciousness and how consciousness observes things. Look at me when you say that. No. No.

[43:43]

You know, when you look at waves in the sun, the oceans, you know, the breakers are there and the waves are in the ocean and they're breaking on the shore. But you see the light of the sun reflected in the breaker, right? So, within that activity, the light is shining forth. It doesn't matter what the activity is. The activity, everything is at rest. But it's not an although, because although means besides, or even so. That's, you know. Yeah. Yes.

[44:50]

That's right. Right. So, they say, the bridge is moving while the water is standing still, because that's its nature. To be yourself completely. Yes.

[46:08]

And how its size, you know, in its fineness it fits into spacelessness. In its greatness it is utterly beyond location. So, this is talking about conforming to whatever circumstance. It's like, it has no special shape, and it has no special shape or form. So, you can't describe it. This is why, you know, it's impossible to describe Muna nature, impossible to describe the mirror, because it doesn't have any special shape or form or characteristics. There's no special shape or form or characteristics that it has, but every shape and form are the shapes and forms of what it is. So, all shapes and forms are its characteristics, but if you point to anything and say, well, this is what it is, it is that, but that doesn't describe it.

[47:29]

Like Tozan looks in the stream, he says, it is me, but I am not it. It is what I am, but I am not it. So, but there's no place that it's not. So, I think all of these translations express pretty much the same thing. So fine that it penetrates no space at all, so large that its bounds can never be measured, so small it enters into spacelessness, so large it's beyond dimension, small it enters where there is no space, large it bursts all bounds. So, they're all pretty much saying the same thing. In other words, it's kind of like water, you know, water would just fill up whatever container, whatever space that it finds, that it flows into, and air is the same way.

[48:48]

So, I don't think it needs much explanation. Here it talks about hells, you know, if you come to the top, the second and third characters, Wu and Ji, you know, does the dog have Buddha nature? Wu, that's the character for Wu. But it means without, no. And Jian in Chinese is interval, or separation, or gap. And if you look down at the bottom of those two characters, they're connected. The two of them together mean Avicii. Avicii is a Sanskrit word meaning a certain kind of, applied to Buddhist hells. There are eight Buddhist hells, and it gives a description of about the eight hells. I don't think that has anything to do with, frankly, I just kind of wanted to make a comment on Avicii hell, uninterrupted or without intermission. So, I think it applies to this in the sense that it's uninterrupted, it's just like there, you know, just all pervasive, just everywhere.

[50:16]

Without exception. So, that's the kind of, I think, the meaning of uninterrupted or Avicii. The Avicii hells in Buddhism are the hell where, well, one of them is, you know, you just go right there, you pass, go. You just go right there. It's interesting, Buddhist hells, it's a little off the mark, I mean, it's a little diversion to talk about Buddhist hells. But, in Mahayana Buddhism, even though there are these illustrations, wonderful Japanese illustrations of these hells, I have some pictures which I'll show you, we create heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are places where we live right now, and they're created by ourself, by our mind, except in extreme circumstances where, you know, we're thrown into a dungeon or something like that.

[51:32]

But, ordinarily, we create our own dungeons and our own heavens, and we try to create our own heavens. This is a big problem. We smoke dope and we create all kinds of circumstances to make our lives heavenly, to create these fake heavenly realms to live in. And society is just loaded with it, you know. The American dream is like this fantasy of creating a heaven and we're just creating a hell. The more conveniences we have, the harder we have to work to get them, and we have to work at them to make them work. You know, I don't want to diverge, but what's happening now is that the offense industry is making mechanical soldiers.

[52:49]

That's the wave of the future, mechanical soldiers, who will be able to think for themselves, up to a point. Anyway, we're creating wonderful heavenly realms here. So, you know, the enlightenment is to be able to know, this is hell and I have created it. This is our heavenly realm and I created it. Yeah. It, it, it's coming up. It, yes. It's the sutra of it. But it seems like there's not a character that's it. I know. Somehow this is all about it, but in Chinese, it is not it. That's right. Yeah. So it is not, you know, it is a neutral term.

[54:01]

It does not have an object, unless you assign it an object. So we assign object, we assign it to object, and we say this is it. Right? So, and then, whatever we point to, we say, whatever we assign, we say this is it. But it is like zero. If you have an equation, and you have a line, and below the line is zero, and above the line is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. So 1, 2, 0 is it, because 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 all contain zero. And all depend on zero. So this is, zero is it, but if I want to talk about five, five is also it, because I assign it to five.

[55:06]

Right? So, this is called the real and the phenomenal. Out of zero comes ten. This is the same thing, as form is emptiness and emptiness is form, if you see it in that light. So it, we talk about it all the time, it is so minute, it is so big, because the only way you can talk about it is to say it, because it doesn't apply to anything in particular. But when you say it, it is zero. It is Buddha nature, it is what you want to be. But it also applies to phenomena. Yeah. There is something beautiful about that it is never, that Chinese can do that without even saying it. Yeah, well yeah, I mean, they have a different way of expressing it, but for us to express it, we have to say it.

[56:08]

So it is just about time. And have a nice sleep. Have a nice day off. Yes, have a nice day off.

[56:24]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ