is about samadhi and prajna. The patriarch, on another occasion, preached to the assembly as follows. Learned audience, In my system, I don't know if system is a good word, but in my system, samadhi and prajna are fundamental. But do not be under the wrong impression that these two are independent of each other, for they are inseparably united and are not two entities. Samadhi is the quintessence of prajna. while prajna is the activity of samadhi. At the very moment that we attain prajna, samadhi is there and vice versa.

[01:09]

If you understand this principle, you understand the equilibrium of samadhi and prajna. A disciple should not think that there is a distinction between samadhi begets prajna and prajna begets samadhi. To hold such an opinion would simply imply that there are two characteristics in the Dharma. Samadhi and Prajna are fundamental. He goes on to explain a little what Samadhi and Prajna are, or what he means by Samadhi and Prajna. So let me go on a little bit before I talk about that. For one whose tongue is ready with good words, but whose heart is impure, samadhi and prajna are useless because they do not balance each other.

[02:11]

On the other hand, when we are good in mind as well as in words, and when our outward appearance and our inner feelings harmonize with each other, then it is a case of equilibrium of samadhi and prajna. Argument is unnecessary for an enlightened disciple. To argue whether prajna or samadhi comes first would put one in the same position as those who are under delusion. Argument implies a desire to win, strengthens egotism, and ties us to the belief in the idea of a self, a being, a living being, and a person. Learn it, audience. To what are samadhi and prajna analogous? They are analogous to a lamp and its light. With the lamp, there is light. Without it, it would be dark. The lamp is the quintessence of the light, and the light is the expression of the lamp.

[03:16]

In name they are two things, but in substance they are one and the same. It is the same case with samadhi and prajna. There have always been two schools of, or two, like, leanings, you might say, in Buddhism. One is the leaning toward samadhi. The other is the leaning toward prajna. You know, the terms Samatha and Vipassana.

[04:18]

Those are basic terms for Buddhist meditation. Samatha and Vipassana. There's a school of Buddhism in America that calls itself the Vipassana school. But actually, there's Samatha and Vipassana, or Samadhi and Prajna. And prajna is inherent wisdom, which is not the wisdom that is the opposite of delusion. Prajna has no opposites. It's the inherent wisdom, which I talked about this before, is the underlying reason for all things. So sometimes prajna is associated with panya.

[05:27]

Panya is worldly wisdom. But prajna is not just worldly wisdom, although it leans toward the side of knowledge. but actually it's not knowledge in the usual sense. It's intuitive rather than discursive. And samadhi is the oneness of subject and object, the non-dual settling into reality. When we practice zazen, both samadhi and prajna are available. You know, when we sit for all day and you are just completely immersed in zazen,

[06:49]

and your legs have been painful all day, and your mind has been working, and thoughts have been bubbling up, and emotions, and then at some point, there's just great stillness. And although there may be thoughts coming up, it's not so much. And even though there's pain in the body, It's just a feeling. Just a feeling. Because the pain in the body is balanced with the universe. And there's just this total stillness. And there's no separation between anything. And we have this kind of wonderful feeling that has nothing to do with how you feel.

[07:54]

It's the joy of no separation. It has nothing to do with whether you have pain in your legs or not. This is a Samadhi. strong feeling of samadhi. Samadhi can be a strong feeling or a weak feeling. Actually, you can sit on zazen for five minutes and samadhi is there. And a concentrated effort without attachments and without discrimination. You don't say, I like this or I don't like this, or it's good or it's bad, or I wish it was something else.

[08:58]

You just are there and totally present without self-centeredness. or desires, just at one with the activity of the moment. And out of this samadhi arises prajna, naturally, because the two are not two different things. As he says, samadhi is like the lamp, the basis. And prajna is the extension or its expression. Samadhi is the expression of this non-dual being.

[10:08]

And it just arises naturally. So you can't say which comes first. Although you could say samadhi comes first and then prajna. But that's just a view. So which comes first, practice or realization? You say, well, practice comes first and through practice is realization. This is the same thing as saying practice and realization. Realization is practice. Dogen says, practice realization. Through practice, one moment of practice is one moment of enlightened realization. It's the same thing. Realization is prajna. Practice is samatha, samadhi. And sometimes it's called stilling the mind and investigating.

[11:12]

But investigating doesn't mean to dig down and see what's there. When the mind is still, you see what's there. It's very clear. When the mind is still, there's no division. So samadhi is settled in the place of no division. And the result of no division is prajna, the intuitive expression of prajna, which is the underlying wisdom of all things, including this person. and we should be able to recognize this. So he says,

[12:41]

In my teaching, samadhi and prajna are fundamental, but do not be under the wrong impression that these two are independent of each other, for they are inseparably united and are not two entities. Samadhi is the quintessence of prajna, that means the very essence, the very center, while prajna is the activity of samadhi. At the very moment that we attain prajna, samadhi is there and vice versa. If you understand this principle, you understand the equilibrium or the equation of samadhi and prajna. A disciple should not think that there is a distinction between samadhi begets prajna and prajna begets samadhi. To hold such an opinion would imply that there are two characteristics in the dharma. For one whose tongue is ready with good words but whose heart is impure, samadhi and prajna are useless because they do not balance each other." In other words, one has to practice and not just talk.

[13:51]

On the other hand, when we are in good mind as well as in words, and when our outward appearance, outward appearance, he means when what we say harmonizes with what we do. When our outward actions and our inner feelings harmonize with each other, then it is a case of equilibrium of samadhi and prajna. Argument is unnecessary for an enlightened disciple. To argue whether prajna or samadhi comes first would put one in the same position as those who are under delusion. Argument implies a desire to win, strengthens egotism, and ties us to the belief in the idea of a self, of being a living being in a person. Argument is okay, but we should be very careful to realize, well, why are we arguing? What's the reason for our arguing?

[14:55]

Or what is there to prove? Learn in audience, to what are samadhi and prajna analogous? They are analogous to a lamp and its light. With the lamp, there is light, and without it, it would be dark. The lamp is the quintessence of the light, and the light is the expression of the lamp. In name, they are two things, but in substance, they are one and the same. And this is the case with samadhi and prajna. On another occasion, the patriarch preached to the assembly as follows. Learned audience, to practice the samadhi of specific mode is to make it a rule to be straightforward on all occasions, no matter whether we are walking, standing, sitting, or reclining. The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra says, straightforwardness is the holy place, the pure land. Don't let your mind be crooked and practice straightforwardness with your lips only.

[15:57]

We should practice straightforwardness and should not attach ourselves to anything. People under delusion believe obstinately in dharma lakshana. Dharma lakshana are things and forms. And so they are stubborn in having their own way of interpreting the samadhi of specific mode, which they define as sitting quietly and continuously without letting any idea come into mind. Does that sound familiar? Such an interpretation would rank us with inanimate objects and is a stumbling block to the right path, which must be kept open. Should we free our mind from attachment to all things, the path becomes clear. Otherwise, we'd put ourselves under restraint. If that interpretation, sitting quietly and continuously, et cetera, be correct, why on one occasion was Shariputra reprimanded by Vimalakirti for sitting quietly in the wood? He talks here about various forms of meditation which were practiced in those days, and before those days, and after those days, which seems like he's criticizing meditation, but he's

[17:22]

He's talking about certain kinds of meditation, certain aspects of meditation which, if you're not familiar with correct meditation, you think he's talking about meditation in general. So I'm going to go back here a little bit. to practice the samadhi of specific mode is to make it a rule to be straightforward on all occasions. Samadhi of specific mode means a specific kind of way of doing something. He said, to practice the samadhi of specific mode is to make it a rule to be straightforward on all occasions. Straightforward has several meanings.

[18:31]

It means not devious, but it also means single-minded, to do something single-mindedly and not take side roads. If one practices single-mindedly without taking side roads, And straightforward means open, and it implies honesty, and it implies sincerity, those kinds of qualities which are conducive to samadhi. And he said this is the way to practice the samadhi of specific mode, to be straightforward, not devious. honest, sincere, and so forth, and single-minded, not allowing yourself to be pulled off one way or another.

[19:35]

Single-mindedness also implies concentration. If one is single-minded, then one has concentration, and concentration is the underlying quality of samadhi. So he says, to make it a rule to be straightforward on all occasions, no matter whether we're walking, standing, sitting, or reclining. So he's talking about in all activities, right? And sitting, standing, walking, standing, sitting, and reclining are the four postures of a person. We're usually in one or the other of those postures. And these are called the four postures of a person. And zazen is not considered one of the four postures. We say to sit zazen, but sitting zazen is not considered one of the four postures by Dogen.

[20:44]

Sitting has a different meaning than just sitting. So he says, no matter whether we're walking, standing, sitting, or reclining. And then he said, the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra says, straightforwardness is the holy place, or the pure land. Don't let your mind be crooked and practice straightforwardness just with your lips. We should practice straightforwardness and should not attach ourselves to anything. In other words, just Master Tsongkhapa always used to say, Just go forward. Go straight. Go straight. That was his dharma. Go straight. Don't look back. Go straight. Don't go to the side or that side. Just go straight. That's not a devious way. Sometimes we have to go this way.

[21:52]

But even though we're going this way, we're still going straight forward. People under delusion believe obstinately in things, in forms, and so they are stubborn in having their own way of interpreting the samadhi of specific mode. This is a problem sometimes. People have their own ways of interpreting Buddhism, interpreting how you practice, and so forth. And often, these days, they say, where the feeling is, who needs the traditional way of doing things? We know what Buddhism is and we'll practice it our own way, which is okay, but there's some egotism in that. Sometimes people Well, anyway, but he says, people under delusion believe obstinately in dharma-laksana, things and form, and so they are stubborn in having their own way of interpreting the samadhi of specific modes, which they define as sitting quietly and continuously without allowing any idea to arise in the mind.

[23:26]

But sitting quietly and continuously is one aspect of zazen. But not allowing anything to arise in the mind is not zazen. One of the mistakes that people often make is thinking that you should not allow any thought to arise in the mind. And no matter how much we say so, people always say, you know, I have all these thoughts arising in my mind, as if there's something wrong with that. So here he's talking about the specific thing, about not letting any thoughts arise in the mind. When we sit zazen, we always allow thoughts to arise in the mind. We don't push them away or think that they shouldn't be there, but we simply let them come and go.

[24:36]

So thoughts are always coming up because it's the function of the mind to think. But we direct our thought in zazen. We direct our thought to the thought of zazen. So we're always thinking. But at the same time we're thinking, not thinking. Because the thought is not separate from the activity. When the thought is not separate from the activity, it's not thinking. It's just doing. But you can't say that it's not thinking, and you can't say that it is thinking. And you can't say that it is thinking, and you can't say that it's not thinking. It's a great go on. Such an interpretation would rank us with inanimate objects.

[25:46]

If we're not thinking, if there's no thought arising in the mind, it's just like an inanimate object. And it's a stumbling block to the right path, which must be kept open. Should we free our mind from attachment to all things, the path becomes clear. So even when the thoughts are arising in the mind, there's no attachment. That's the difference. Usually, thoughts are arising in our mind and we become enslaved by them, or we become influenced by them, or they turn us around. Here, although the thoughts are arising, they're not being taken up. So if that interpretation, well, there's a footnote here. I'll read the footnote. A bhikkhu, that's a monk, once asked Dhyana Master Shektao, a successor to one of the six patriarchs' disciples, what is emancipation?

[26:59]

The master asked him in return, who puts you under restraint? That's just like the third ancestor. The significance of this answer is practically the same as that of our text here. Again, when the sixth patriarch said that the fifth patriarch would not discuss dhyana and emancipation, but only the realization of the essence of mind, he expressed the same idea. So he says, if that interpretation, sitting quietly and continuously, etc., be correct, Why on one occasion was Shariputra reprimanded by Vimalakirti for sitting quietly in the woods? So I'll tell you this story. Vimalakirti said to Shariputra, as to sitting quietly, it should mean that one does not put in an appearance within the three worlds. That is, one's consciousness should be above the world of desire, the world of matter, and the world of non-matter. There are two sets of three worlds. One set of three worlds is past, present, and future.

[28:02]

And that's what we say in the Heart Sutra. Three worlds means past, present, and future. The other three worlds are the world of form, no form, and the world of desire. So it means that one should not put an appearance within the three worlds. One's consciousness should be of the world of desire, the world of matter, and the world of non-matter. it should mean that while remaining in nirodha-samapatti, which means ecstasy with cessation of consciousness, this is one of the jhanas, the highest jhana, ecstasy with cessation of consciousness, one is able to do the various bodily movements such as walking, standing, sitting or reclining, etc. What it actually means here, it should mean that without deviating from the norm, one is able to discharge various temporal duties. It should mean that one abides neither within nor without.

[29:09]

It should mean that one practices the 37 wings of enlightenment without being moved by heretical views. It means that without exterminating defilements, one may enter nirvana. One who is able to sit thus will be approved by the Buddhas. So this is right. No matter what one is doing, one is abiding in this meditation. I mean, that's possible. So what he's criticizing is a certain meditation technique which is separate from life. A kind of separate entity, which is like going into a dark cave and closing your eyes and shutting yourself off from the world. So, Zazen, although Zazen has this quality of retreat, it's carried the same quality of

[30:24]

meditation is carried out in all activities of life. So it should mean that without deviating from the norm, when it's able to discharge various temporal duties, it means, and it should mean that while remaining in samadhi, and non-attachment, one is able to do the various bodily movements such as walking, standing, sitting or reclining. And that one can practice all the practices and without exterminating kleshas means that purity is within the impure life, so-called mundane life. Purity means that one can be cool, one's coolness or nirvana, it's not necessary to have a certain ideal purity in order to experience nirvana.

[31:45]

So the old Buddhists, you know, this comes from a kind of contestedness between the old school, which said that in order to have nirvana, you had to completely cut off all defilements, which means almost everything. So then he says, learn in audience. Some teachers of meditation instruct their disciples to keep a watch on their mind for tranquility so that it will cease from activity. Henceforth, the disciples give up all exertion of mind. Ignorant persons become insane from having too much confidence in such instructions. Such cases are not rare, and it is a great mistake to teach others to do this. So he's talking about this kind of extreme way of Watching the mind, so you're studying the mind, searching for the mind, actually.

[32:54]

In zazen, we don't search for the mind. We don't make any such, do any such activity like that. Mind cannot be grasped or searched out. Just pay attention to what we're doing. And the mind reveals itself. So they keep a watch on the mind for tranquility so that it will cease from activity, shutting down the mind. On another occasion, the patriarch addressed the assembly as follows. In orthodox Buddhism, the distinction between the sudden school and the gradual school does not really exist. The only difference recognized is that by nature some are quick-witted while others are dull in understanding. Those who are enlightened realize the truth all of a sudden, while those who are under delusion have to train themselves gradually.

[33:57]

But such a difference will disappear when we know our own mind and realize our own nature. Therefore, these terms gradual and sudden are more apparent than real. And I think we can put to rest gradual and sudden. Even though this is called the sudden school. But the sudden school is gradual, and the gradual school is sudden. You know, you work gradually for 20 years, and then suddenly your mind opens. And suddenly your mind opens, and then you spend the rest of your life in gradual practice. Learned audience, it has been the tradition of our school to take idealistness as our subject. Idealistness can also, you can say mindlessness. I think mindlessness might be better.

[35:00]

It's a little crazier. Actually, it's not crazy at all. But non-objectivity is our basis, and non-attachment is our fundamental principle. Non-objectivity means not to be absorbed by objects when in contact with objects. It's funny to say not absorbed, but I think when you're in contact with objects, you should be absorbed. You should be one with objects so that there's not a separation. Non-objectivity means not to be absorbed by objects when in contact with objects. What do you mean? Infatuated? Infatuated, I think would be better. Yeah, not to be infatuated or... Obsessed?

[36:05]

What? Obsessed. Obsessed. Obsessed or... Yeah, I mean those are very extreme. Carried away. Carried away, yeah. Not enticed or... Carried away I think is good. Not to... Not to be covetous, not to covet things or to feel that things are desirable. Not to get caught by the desire for objects when in contact with objects.

[37:06]

Idealistness means not to be carried away by any particular idea. in the exercise of the mental faculty. And non-attachment is the characteristic of our essence of mind. Non-attachment is the characteristic of our essence of mind. It means we think of non-attachment, you know, as not being attached to anything, but we are always in contact with things. We're always in contact with something, with many things. So I would say that non-attachment means like appropriate engagement. That's my thought. How do you engage with things in an appropriate way? Because we're always having to engage with things.

[38:11]

But what does that mean? It means that when we take up something, there's an attachment. But within attachment is non-attachment. It's the non-attachment of attachment. The non-attachment within attachment. We have something, but we're also willing to let it go. Attachment is when you pick something up and you're not willing to let it go. As long as you're always willing to let something go, so things are always flowing through us. And we are a conduit. We're part of the conduit of life. Each one of us plays a part in the flow of objects. And to put them into appropriate use is very important.

[39:17]

So how you balance this act with all these things without taking one of them and putting it in your pocket. When you take one and put it in your pocket, it destroys the flow of things. There's enough money in the world to support everybody. There's enough food in the world to support everybody. But some of us put the money and the food into our pocket, and so it disrupts the flow. And so some people are hungry and poor. So, if everyone had this feeling of non-attachment, they'd call us communists, or they'd call us socialists, or something. All things, good or bad, beautiful or ugly, should be treated as empty.

[40:23]

Even in times of disputes and quarrels, we should treat our intimates and our enemies alike and never think of retaliation. That's very difficult. Very difficult. But it's the only way, actually, to find your own freedom. This is not retaliate. You want to hit them over the head, but you don't. And self-restraint is very hard. You want to smack your kids, and you don't. In the exercise of our thinking faculty, let the past be gone. If we allow our thoughts, past, present, and future, to link up in a series, we put ourselves under restraint. That's an interesting concept. If we allow our thoughts past, present, and future to link up, we put ourselves under restraint. Because we can't allow, you know, time and movement and existence are in increments.

[41:35]

It looks like one continuous flow, but actually it's all incremental. Each moment is discrete. Each moment's time and activity is discrete. And if we link up past, present, and future, then we limit our freedom. Because at any moment, if we don't link that up, then we can see this moment clearly as its own moment, with its own past and future. Each moment has its own past and future and is an eternal moment. But if we only see it as moving, then life just looks like a motion. It's like a wave, but if we

[42:40]

allowed this moment to be its own entity, then this is the moment of the ocean, rather than just the moment of the wave. Just the momentum of the wave. Do you see that? It's a little confusing. I was wondering about something a little more concrete, that if you think that the past determines the future, you're kind of stuck in the present, you don't allow the possibility Well, the past does influence the present. The past influences the present, and the present influences the future. That does happen. But if you hook them up as determined... If you hook them up as determined, that's true. So one always has the opportunity to stop the flow or stop the direction of karma. That's basic Buddhism. Our life may seem determined, And it is determined by our past actions, but there's always the possibility of changing the direction of our actions by recognizing our past karma.

[43:56]

And when we recognize our past karma and acknowledge it and make some determination to change our direction, that's possible. So it's always possible to change, although it may not be easy. Are you saying each moment has its own past and future rather than the past and future we link up to it? Well, I wouldn't say rather than. There is a past and future which we link up. But each moment is independent. This moment's past is from where this moment is, it's this moment's past and future, rather than this wave's past and future. So in this moment there's infinite, by living in the moment there's infinite choice or possibilities, whereas if you live in the past and projecting into the future, it's already determined.

[45:10]

Yes. I'm feeling a funny little subtle thing with these two uses of the word restraint. Uh-huh. You said, if you think of Link Up, past, present, future, we restrain ourselves and we limit our freedom. Uh-huh. But then you said that right after we talked about a good kind of self-restraint. Yeah. And I've just been sitting here playing with that. Well. And it sounds like I could try to do it. There are two kinds of self-restraint. Yeah, but if we see the past as determining, we sort of get attached to the past and think it's created a mold of our present form as a solid thing, and here we are, and I can't help it, I'm just who I am. We're a victim of the past. That's putting ourself under restraint, is to think that we're a victim of the past, and to stay in that mode. When you become ordained as a monk, you cut off your past life and you start life fresh.

[46:21]

At the same time, it sounds like we need to be very aware of our past because that's part of what in fact will free us to restrain ourselves in the good sense. That's right. So the past should teach us how to restrain ourselves. So one is self-restraint and the other is imposed restraint, which is Self-restraint is your own self-protection, right? Whereas this other kind of restraint is... Delusional. Yeah. Denying possibilities. Right. Denying the possibilities, right? It's putting yourself under suppression. So, it's not necessary to be enslaved by the past. That's what he's saying. And so many of us are. So many of us are dominated by our past and allowing ourselves to just continue that domination.

[47:29]

Yeah? Another take of this is seeing the past, present, and future as a continuum. Yeah. With which we tie ourselves. Right. With which we tie ourselves. Yeah. It's like a rope with which we tie ourselves. And it's past time. Subscribe, numberless.

[48:25]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ