Of course, it rained on the parade yesterday. It's the first rain in a year. It rains on the parade. So, we're in the middle of an Aspects period, a one-month period, of senior students presenting a theme. And the theme, as most of you know already, is Suzuki Roshi's mostly unpublished transcripts, talks relating to the subject of koans. San Francisco Zen Center has just done an amazingly thorough job of making transcriptions. Somebody had to spend a lot of time doing that. but many transcriptions. So that's what we're working from. And the point is to give us some feeling of the flavor of his way of talking, as well as what he was conveying.

[01:13]

And, you know, I find that the transcriptions are actually, for me, more evocative than the well-edited pieces that we read in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, or not always so. It takes more work to kind of understand exactly what he's saying, but because his English wasn't so good, but also because it wasn't so good, it's harder to use our usual logic, which is good. So you get a feeling for what he's saying, but it's not quite as neat and compact as in the edited versions. So I found that actually helpful. So koans, you know, we're a Soto practice, so koans are not the central part of our practice. However, you know, there's been a... Dogen used koans quite a lot, so there's not a big separation, there's not a formal separation between koans and just sitting.

[02:18]

It's more a variable. Generally, you don't mix them, but still, it's not that you have to avoid them either, that you have to avoid one or avoid the other. And Suzuki Roshi referred to Kalan's a good deal, but didn't usually give a whole talk about one, but would bring one up in the middle of the talk. And with this talk today, I'd like to focus on one lecture he gave in 1971, just a few months before he died, down in Tassajara. And the case that he was referring to in the middle of this talk was Yakujo and the Fox, a very famous case that shows up in at least two of the three main koan collections that we study. The reason that I picked this case was because Sojin has been running a, has been teaching a koan class for almost, for more than two years now, going into the third year next year, the Book of Serenity,

[03:28]

The literal translation of that is the Book of Not-Forcing-Things. The actual literal Chinese is the Book of Not-Forcing-Things, but we say the Book of Serenity. So taking this class, you know, we meet every couple of weeks here, every few weeks throughout the year, you begin to get some feeling for the language of Koans, that there's actually kind of a language that you can become familiar with just by especially having a guide. A good guide who understands a lot of the references and the structure is helpful. So the koans don't have to be so mysterious or quirky, the way there's a kind of stereotypical idea of koans as being this kind of weird. But the more that you are familiar with them, they're not so weird, actually. They're not always logical in the way we think of logic. And the word kōan comes from, in Chinese, comes from the original meaning of kōan is a legal precedent.

[04:37]

So the kōans are just precedents for different points of practice. Kōan is kind of an interesting kind of sounding word, but basically it just means like a legal precedent. Or the same importance for a spiritual precedent as for legal precedents. And also what made me pick this particular case is that Sojin taught this koan, the last one that he taught was about a month ago. And in the class he said, of all the koans that I'm familiar with, and I think I'm getting this right, of all the koans that I'm familiar with, this is the one that most well expresses Suzuki Roshi's teaching. Anyway, he said that.

[05:40]

So I thought, well, then that's a pretty good recommendation. So in this talk, Suzuki Roshi starts not really talking about the koan. The title of the talk is not the koan. The title of the talk is, at least the title that Zen Center gave it, was Specialty and Equality. So I'll just read... I'll try not to read too much because I think something is lost if we do that. about all these little segments. Specialty means various beings, which is special. Each being are special, and each being has its own meaning of existence. When something exists, there is some reason why something exists.

[06:48]

And equality is even though things are different, but strictly speaking, each thing does not exist in that way, because they are changing, constantly changing. And each being cannot be replaced by something else. So we say because everything is different, everything is equal value. So can you hold both of those things in your mind at the same time? That's what he's trying to get us to do. So when he's talking about, he used the word specialty in a way that we don't use it. We would not use this kind of way of speaking. We wouldn't say that each person is, we might say each person is unique, like no two snowflakes are the same. For sure, no two people are exactly the same. It would be impossible.

[07:54]

Even with genetic engineering, they would wind up differently. So specialty, what he's saying about specialty is more qualities, the qualities that we have. which are unique to us, but doesn't mean that other people don't have them as well. But the particular configuration of qualities, or the qualities themselves, are what he's calling our specialty. And special doesn't mean better than something else. Special means it's just in itself, it's really, everything in itself is worthwhile. And so each being has, each of us, every human, and I don't know about animals, but every human has its own quality that is worthy. Not worthy according to some judgmental system, but just as is.

[09:00]

It just is. And to recognize the importance of that. And that the reason that we are how we are is there's reasons for why we are like we are. It's not just kind of arbitrary, but there's reasons why we are like we are. Which is a kind of a weight. There's a weight there. It's not just some arbitrary circumstance. And when something exists, there is some reason why something exists. Well, the reason, for one thing, is our parents. That's why we exist. And their parents, and a whole slew of other factors, of course. So, that's what I mean by specialty.

[10:01]

Just the fact that we exist is enough. It's enough to make it a value. It's a value. We have value. And equality is... Now he's taking a certain tact there. Now, equality is, even though things are different there, strictly speaking, They don't exist in that way because they're changing. So because everything is changing, that's true for everybody. No matter what our particular individual qualities are, all of us, our qualities are constantly changing. Maybe in such subtle and incremental ways that we don't notice it. But we're always changing. We're not exactly the same person that when we walk out of this room that we were when we walked in. And we all have it, and nobody is exempt from that. So, in that sense, we're all equal.

[11:13]

I would also say that... I'm not taking his tap, but my tap would be... We're all equal because who's to judge value? Who is the ultimate judge of value? Society has a value system of the kind of, you know, celebrities, sports stars, politicians, brilliant people, very adept, talented people, tend to be assigned higher value societally. And people that are kind of ordinary and, you know, aren't outstanding in terms of comparison to others, society doesn't accord them so much value. Nobody comes out and actually says that, but that's what seems to happen in terms of where people's attention go. So my feeling is, well, who ultimately, who is to judge?

[12:20]

Is society the ultimate judge? That would be tragic. a society where the ultimate judge were a society, and you could say God is the ultimate judge, but, you know, that's difficult. So, you know, to me I don't see anybody, I don't see anybody around, or any God, or any Buddha, or anything that's going to judge the value of a person, other than just the person being the person. There's no authority figure who is making that judgment. Thankfully. So, he goes on to say, so when you want to have equality, a woman should be a woman, and a man should be a man. When a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and a stone is a stone, and a cucumber is a cucumber, an eggplant is an eggplant, then they are equal.

[13:28]

No one can change their value. Each cucumber is valuable as a cucumber. But as human being is very selfish. So someone who does not like eggplant may say that the cucumber is better. But actually cucumber and eggplant is the same in terms of, I'm adding this, in terms of value. And so is man and woman because each being has its own reason to exist. And each being cannot be replaced by something else. So we say each being has the same value, equal value. So I'll just give you some of my experience as a manager of a large massage studio in San Francisco with about 30 massage therapists, is that Of those 30, there are some that are just outstandingly good.

[14:34]

And there are a number that are just sort of so-so. Actually, more than so-so, but not outstandingly good, just put it that way. And I am biased towards the ones that are really good because they make my job easier and make everything flow well. Ones that are not at that level are just They do a good job, but I have a little bit more regard for the ones that are really good. And knowing that I have that bias, I'm careful not to buy into it as well as I can, because it's really important to me to be fair to everybody and to respect everybody. Nevertheless, no matter how much I'm aware of that, on a subtle level, I'm always aware of that bias towards the people that are more helpful to me, which is my self-centeredness.

[15:41]

So, I absolutely understand what he's saying here, that actually each person is equal. However, for my well-being, I drift towards one or the other. But it's important to me not to to be really careful about that and not act that out in any way. So, I'd like to go to the case. Sometimes it's easier just to read the case right out of the book, but I think it's a little easier to grasp if I just say it. So, Yakujo, so after, excuse me, so after Suzuki Roshi's given this kind of introduction, then he says, I want to tell you about this case. So, in this case, Yakujo is the abbot, and there was, Yakujo actually existed, and was a great teacher.

[16:48]

Yakujo means a hundred foot mountain, and so he taught on mountain. He gave talks regularly, like Sojin does, and actually the monks in those days would stand up for the talks. In China, up until the communists came in, in Zen monasteries, when there was a talk, everybody would stand up for the entire talk. So, I'm not going to bring that up for the practice. But that's the way it was. So, and there was always a monk, for a long time a monk just showed up with everybody else. And one day, when everybody leaves the zendo, this monk hangs behind, stays behind, and doesn't leave. So, Yagraja says, well, can I help you? What's the matter?

[17:51]

And the monk says, well, you know, eons ago, like, you know, six or seven Buddhas before Buddha, I was the abbot on this mountain. And I do just what you're doing, I give talks. And a monk asked me, is an enlightened person subject to karma or causation? And I said, no, an enlightened person is not subject to karma. And as a result of that, I've spent 500 lives being reborn as a fox. And you know, in Asia, a fox is considered a really lowly, untrustworthy, suspicious kind of animal. So you do not want to be a fox. He was reborn as a fox for that answer. And so Yakujo says, so can you give me a turning word that will help me to release me from this bondage of being reborn in this way?

[18:54]

And Yakujo says, an enlightened person does not ignore karma. So the monk woke up when he heard that and disappeared. And Yakujo said to the other monks, if you go around to the side of the mountain, you'll find a dead fox there. So they went around to the side of the mountain. There's a dead fox lying there, which is, you know, he's finally been released from his body. And so they give him a priest burial with all the honors. And then later that night, Yakujo was explaining this to the monks what happened. And his lead disciple, who is Obaku, or Wong Po, says, well, Teacher, what would happen if that monk had given the right answer? If every time he was asked a question, he had given the right answer, then what would have happened?

[19:55]

And Yakojo said, come here closer and I'll tell you. So Obaku approached Yakojo and then quickly slapped him in the face. Who slapped who? the disciple slapped the teacher. The disciple asked the question, well, what if he got the answer right all the time? And the teacher says, well, come here closer and I'll tell you. And so he comes closer and then slaps him quickly. And Yagwajo, the teacher, laughs and says, I thought that you were a red-bearded barbarian, but now I see that you're a barbarian with a red beard. Which means, Which means, you know, I know exactly who you are, I know your awareness, your insight, I know who you are, but you just came at a different angle than I thought you were coming from, that's all. But he enjoyed it tremendously.

[20:58]

And by the way, slapping in Zen koans does not mean punishment or brutality, it's like but also a little sting is good, that quality too. A little sting might be good for you. So the conundrum of his koan is that he gave, actually according to traditional Buddhism and the way of understanding karma, which I do not want to get into in detail, that An enlightened person has really realized no self. They realize that their self and their attachment to a sense of self in terms of some independent intrinsic core is just gone. So there's no energy there to create further karma.

[22:03]

Therefore, they're not reborn. So that's actually a correct answer from that point of view. And the arhats were the great practitioners in early Buddhism. And the arhats had a four-step path. The first path was entering the stream. The second path was like a once-returner. You'd only come back for one more lifetime. Actually, there's two stages there. And the fourth stage is non-returner. You just do not come back. You've done what's to be done, and you just do not come back. So he gave the right answer, according to traditional So that's the column, that's the conundrum. Why was he reborn as a fox if he gave the answer that seemed to be the right answer? so

[23:35]

Suzuki Roshi's taft that he takes in explaining this, and we're all supposed to not explain koans, but I'm sorry, I'll try to explain my understanding of Suzuki Roshi's explanation. Suzuki Roshi's explanation is that the problem here was that he was caught in one side of equality and specialty. He was caught in just one side of that. And because he had a one-sided view of it, a dualistic he saw the equality side.

[25:02]

The monk who was reborn as a fox saw the equality side of the fact that there's no self, that everything is equal. So what is there to create karma? So he was coming from that side and the form side, or the specialty side, He was dismissing that actually the fact that we actually exist and have qualities is as important as the fact that we're also equal, that there is no self or attachment. There's no self in the way that we think of self. He forgot that side. He didn't want to talk about it. He didn't want to, he didn't see that side. And so that's really Suzuki Roshi's point throughout his teachings, is that we see things from a one-sided perspective.

[26:06]

Usually we see things from the relative perspective. We don't see the absolute or the emptiness perspective. But this teacher saw things from the emptiness perspective, the no-self perspective, and lost sight of the form perspective or the relative side. So the question is, how do we keep both without falling onto one side and falling onto the other side? Suzuki Roshi calls it, he has a favorite phrase that he uses in talk after talk, a board-carrying fellow. Somebody is carrying a board And because there's a long board, you can see straight ahead, and you can see to the left, but you can't see to the right.

[27:11]

So this month was a board-carrying fellow, but he was not able to see the relative side. And then beyond that even, the problem with this, or the conundrum in this column, challenging the whole idea of right and wrong. Well, gee, if he gives the right answer, this'll happen. If he gives the wrong answer, that'll happen. And trying to get underneath the whole idea of right and wrong. So, you know, is the right and wrong the ultimate issue? Is whether you get the right answer or the wrong answer the ultimate issue? they're enlightened, is that wonderful? I think what he was getting at, what Obaku, the disciple, was getting at, and which Yakujo knew he was getting at, was that the specialty quality, I won't even say that, I'll just say that something deeper than being right or wrong

[28:38]

is the most important. Just the sheer fact of our existence and the value of our existence is important. And so being, which is the teaching, which is that whatever circumstances we're in, how to really be in those circumstances, whether we like them or not, whether they're pleasant or not. So that's one thing that's missing in the first part of the whole con and the case. It's like, well, if you get the right answer, everything will be OK. And if you get the wrong answer, you'll be reborn as a fox. But Habakkuk was going for the, well, whichever way it works out, how can you really fully live now? when you're dying.

[29:40]

And Suzuki Roshi was basically dying when he gave this talk. He only died like three, four months later and he was not feeling very good. So how do we get beyond or deeper than right and wrong without ignoring right and wrong? And how do we get deeper than just a relative or absolute? That's the best I can do for now. And I do want to leave time for questions or comments. Can you go first, please? Well, I think that those lectures that Suzuki Roshi's, that you're studying, when he first came to America, he went through the whole booklet record.

[30:47]

That's his lecture. And some of them were taken down by various people and appeared in this uncovered commentary on the Koans. And his language was not so good at that time. is to present something in an explicit way, and explaining is trying to make something make sense. So he could express himself better. So he used the terms virtue and value. Value being comparative, and virtue being what you're talking about is each person having their own particular virtue.

[31:48]

which is incomparable because each person is Buddha nature. the slab. Because it's physical, there's no ambiguity in it. Yes, that's right, there's no ambiguity, but it goes beyond And that, like, if you sneeze in Sojin's class, you'll say, oh, you just got enlightened. Because at that moment of sneezing, you weren't thinking about anything. It's just like sneeze.

[32:50]

So, you're not, when somebody slaps you unexpectedly, you're not thinking about anything, there's no right or wrong. It's just like, and that's what he was trying to convey. But not to hurt him. He was not trying to hurt him. Laura? Well, I can't help but think, where I went was that the teacher was gonna slap him. they're both on the same page yeah they're both exactly in Virtue and value ideas. So, I assume that what you're saying is that each person's virtue is not, is that permanent?

[33:52]

Permanent? It's always changing. So each person's virtue is always changing? Yes. Well, fundamental virtue is not, but... Fundamental virtue? Yeah. So fundamental virtue is the same? Yes. No, a fundamental virtue is permanent. How is it permanent? Well, the impermanent because it's just like everything else is impermanent.

[34:54]

This is not a thing. What is it? I'm not going to answer that. I really visualize that this scenario, the event of the monk born as a fox, disguised as a monk, coming to lecture after lecture. Kind of like us. But, you know, so his rebirth and all these rebirths, I can't help but feel was the cause, was kind of inspiration and the catalyst for his inquiring mind.

[35:58]

You know, that the question of, you know, what is my nature, you know, what is, You know, what situation have I caused for myself is what brought him to that lecture hall again and again, which is very moving. That is his coming to terms with the reality. we go off the track, we make a mistake, or we create suffering, and we learn, hopefully, we learn from that suffering. To be aware of it, but to learn from it. Linda. Yeah. Well, I just, first, I just want to say that, which everybody probably understands, that that slap shouldn't be,

[37:04]

thought of as the same kind of slap that I got from my father when I was a kid, you know, that was not enlightening. More like an elbow in the ribs or something like that. But I just want to highlight something in the story which I've always really loved, even when I didn't know why I loved it, and encourage you to bring it out a little more. So when he got asked, is an enlightened person subject to cause and effect, and he said no, And then the Obahu said, what if you'd said right? The right answer, like, yes? Would that have been the right answer? No. The way Hyakujo rephrases the whole thing is, an enlightened person does not ignore cause and effect. And that might seem like a subtle difference, or maybe you all get the difference. I don't know. But I'd just like to bring it forth and ask you to say more about what's the difference And a concrete example, like, if we do not ignore cause and effect, how is that different from saying, yes, an enlightened person is subject to cause and effect?

[38:19]

Well, one thing is by saying we don't ignore it, we're not saying yes or no. So we're wide open. We're open. There's a subtlety in what you're bringing up, which is tricky. Suzuki Roshi uses both phrases. He says, one time he'll say, an enlightened person does not fall into karma, and the next thing he'll say, an enlightened person does not ignore karma. And even Dogen sort of vary between those two interpretations. And so the word, the translation of does not ignore and actually is, actually, excuse me, I was maybe the wrong thing about Suzuki Roshi, is that Suzuki Roshi does say he does fall into karma, he is karmically engaged.

[39:28]

It's not a matter of does it ignore, he just, he is, he is subject to karma. And Dogon sort of varied between two positions of saying, it just doesn't ignore, or it just is subject to karma. So, one is you have it both ways, but the other is, or you're open to both, but the other, when you actually say, he is subject to karma, I can't explain, but there's something there that's worthwhile to consider. is that he didn't mind, he enjoyed his 500 years as a fox. That's it, that's in the case in the Muma Akali's case. That he enjoyed his life as a fox. Why don't you enjoy your life?

[40:33]

I do, but that don't mean I'm enlightened. That means I'm enlightened. Yeah, when you come closer.

[40:42]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ