I vow to taste the truth without the target of words. Good evening. Good evening. Excuse me, could I say something before we start? Deena said it was okay for me to say this. On three occasions I came here during my kitchen break in the afternoon, and I had to find a copy of the Platform Sutra, and I couldn't find one. And I thought we had said something about bleeding in the dining room, I wonder if somebody who's got them wrapped up in a cloth can tell me where they are. The people who checked them out for me are supposed to leave them in here. I don't think maybe people didn't quite get that. I think maybe they're just wrapped up in people's clothes. I don't know where they are. Somebody could just tell me. Okay. section that we're going to look at this evening doesn't appear in the Dunhuang edition.

[01:02]

So this is a later edition, and it's the chapter on Prajna, section 2 in the Ming version of the Wangyalam translation. And you can luck out with somebody else or just listen. Buddhist sutras, especially Mahayana sutras, tend to either start out small and get bigger or start out big and get smaller. The scholars used to think that they started out big and got smaller. and now they realize that they started out small and get bigger as time goes on. In which way are you referring to?

[02:05]

Length? Yeah, additions. We have the Prajnaparamita Sutras, which are 600 volumes. I don't know what volume means exactly, but sections. And we have the Prajnaparamita Sutra in 100,000 lines, and we have it in one word. The Sanskrit letter A is one word, Prajnaparamita Sutra. The Heart Sutra looks... The Heart Sutra is actually a very small condensation the Prajnaparamita literature and the Diamond Sutra also. And then we have the Prajnaparamita Sutra in 25,000 slokas and in 8,000.

[03:09]

So scholars at first thought that maybe it started out small but it got reduced. But now they feel that the sutras started out smaller and people kept adding their own commentary to the sutras, which became part of the sutras. So some people, Kansei used to think that all of Buddhism was done in India. And the rest of the Buddhists literature and practice was a degeneration of the Indian style, or what the Indians did. I think that everything that was done afterward is a development of Buddhism. Buddha is the seed and the rest of it is the development by other people, which makes it very alive.

[04:14]

Suzuki Roshi said, the wonderful thing about Buddhism is that it's not finished. Yes? Could you speak a little bit louder? Yeah. Thank you. Did you hear what I said? No. He said, the wonderful thing about Buddhism is that it's not finished. So I think the Platform Sutra continued to be developed for quite a long time, up until the Ming Dynasty at least. And there's no way of telling what the original Platform Sutra was, except it was probably very small. And there was a time right after the Sixth Patriarch where teachers from that certain lineage, but nobody's sure quite what lineage, used to give copies of the Platform Sutra to their disciples as a sign of their understanding.

[05:25]

And so a person had this copy of the Platform Sutra from their teacher, it meant that they had some, you know, transmission. but nobody's sure exactly what school that was and exactly who was doing this. But they know that this was going on. So the later Platform Sutra has all of the additions, most of the additions. Some of them actually dropped away during the process of development of the sutra. And so these additions, I think, are important because this is what people have been studying, since students have been studying up to the present day, is the Platform Sutra with all its additions.

[06:27]

So although people may look for authenticity as to the original Platform Sutra, it's kind of like looking for the authenticity of what Buddha said. Exactly. So, I think the Platform Sutra is a work of Sambhogakaya Buddha. Sambhogakaya is the Buddha mind at work through various people, through various teachers and students. And Buddhism continues to develop in this way.

[07:32]

So I agree that the wonderful thing about Buddhism is that it's not finished and continues to be developed. The Platform Sutra continues to be written in various ways. Also, the time of the Platform Sutra, up until the Ming Dynasty, was before the Koan system came into prominence. During the Tang Dynasty, which was the golden age of Zen, the teachers had dialogues and these dialogues became very famous and then they became put into collections and then later people used them as koans. And of course they were used as koans in the Tang Dynasty, but not in a self-conscious way.

[08:37]

So, this is a more... The stuff in the Platform Sutra represents a certain level of practice that people had before the Koan system became popular. So I'll just read along, and if any time you want us to bring up a question, just go ahead. So this is chapter two on prajna, and you have it, prajna, prajna, you have it in your

[09:44]

doing one long translation. So it starts out the next day. It must be the next day from when Huynh Nam came to the Pha Hai temple and introduced himself, and they asked him to give a lecture. Maybe this is the day after his ordination. The next day, Prefect Y asked the ancestor to give another address. Thereupon, having taken his seat and asked the assembly to purify their mind collectively and to recite the Maha Prajnaparamita Sutra, he gave the following address." Learned audience. See, he always addresses people this way, learned audience or bodhisattvas or something like that. He makes people feel that they have some status, that they are not just stupid, ordinary people. learned audience, the wisdom of enlightenment is inherent in every one of us.

[10:48]

It is because of the delusion under which our mind works that we fail to realize it ourselves, and that we have to seek the advice and the guidance of enlightened ones before we know our own essence of mind. You should know that so far as Buddha nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened person and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it while the other is ignorant of it. Now let me talk to you about Maha Prajnaparamita so that each of you can attain wisdom. Learned audience, those who recite the word Prajna the whole day long do not seem to know that Prajna is inherent in their own nature. But mere talking on food will not appease hunger. And this is exactly the case with these people. We might talk on shunyata, emptiness. He calls it the void. The old translation, the old way to translate shunya was void, rather than emptiness.

[11:53]

Emptiness may be more current. We might talk on shunyata for myriads of kalpas, but talking alone will not enable us to realize the essence of mind, and it serves no purpose in the end. The word Maha prajñāpāramitā is Sanskrit. It means great wisdom to reach the opposite shore of the sea of existence. Suzuki Roshi used to say, when we know how to live our life on this shore, we're already on the other shore. What we have to do is to put it into practice with our mind. Whether we recite it or not does not matter. Mere reciting it without practice may be likened to a phantasm, a magical delusion, a flash of lightning, or a dew drop." That sounds like the, uh... What?

[12:55]

No. Sounds like the Diamond Sutra. On the other hand, if we do both, then our mind will be in accord with what we repeat orally. Our very nature is Buddha, and apart from this nature, there is no other Buddha." So he's saying, you have to practice what you chant. You can't just chant without practice. Otherwise, it's like, as Dogen says, frogs croaking. What is maha? It means great. The capacity of the mind is as great as that of space. It is infinite, neither round nor square, neither great nor small, neither green nor yellow, neither red nor white, neither above nor below, neither long nor short, neither angry, happy, right, wrong, good, or bad, evil, neither first nor last.

[14:05]

It is infinite and doesn't conform to any of these characteristics. All Buddha lands are as void as space, as empty as space. Intrinsically, our transcendental nature is empty and not a single dharma can be attained. Not a single dharma can be attained means you can't attain any of the dharmas, any of the teachings. He uses dharma here, it means teaching. or truths. It is the same with the essence of mind, which is a state of absolute emptiness, the emptiness of emptiness. No, the emptiness of non-emptiness. Emptiness of non-emptiness. What does that mean? Well, what is it that's non-empty?

[15:11]

I think you're right. I don't think you're wrong, but I'm just saying directly, what is not empty? What appears to be not empty? Phenomenal world. Yeah, phenomenal world. Seems to be not empty. So it's the emptiness of what seems to be not empty. I think that's what he's saying. It is the same with the essence of mind which is a state of absolute void, which means the voidness of non-void, or the emptiness of that which is not empty, does not seem empty. So the non-substantiality of what seems substantial.

[16:22]

A learned audience, when you hear me talk about the void, do not at once fall into the idea of vacuity. part of that statement, because this involves the heresy of the doctrine of annihilation. So people, you know, since we're Zen students, we know that when we talk about emptiness, it doesn't mean absence of something. What? It does not mean the absence of something. It means What? I thought it meant the absence of an inherent self. Yeah, like Steve said. Absence of an inherent substantial self. So if there's no inherent substantial self, what is there?

[17:29]

I can't hear you. Everything. What do you mean by everything? There's no separate thing. What's left is everything and everything. I know how hard it must be for you to hear me at the end of the room. I feel it. I feel it. But can you say it in a way that is more penetrating? Well, I don't know. And what's, if there's no inherent separate self, then what's left is everything, well, I was just thinking about this today. The way I can say it tonight is that everything else is the contents of that self.

[18:34]

All that appears, all that is contradictorily self-identical. You know what I mean. Don't plagiarize. How about all that's left is impermanence and change. Of what? Of the universe. Of what? What do we call these things, these everythings? The world. Interdependent parts. Yeah, interdependent parts. Apparent phenomena. I think interdependent parts is something that you can think about. I think interdependent parts is the answer I wanted. How about what appeared? What appears? Yeah, appearance is also... Mind. Mind?

[19:47]

Well, yes, anything you say, but... there's a kind of track, you know, where you... that helps you to think about one thing after another. So, if you say interdependence, that brings all of the parts together without an inherent existence. And we call those parts dharmas. But even the dharmas, as the Prajnaparamita Sutra says, have no inherent existence. Even the parts of which everything is a part of, is dependent on, has also no inherent existence. So that's why it's called empty.

[20:53]

Is that something that's seen or known, or is that... because it could be something that's just a logical explanation, but is that something that's seen? Yeah, whatever is seen. Everything that we see, and feel, and hear, and smell, and taste, and touch, is the same. Maybe if we see like the roof, the roof that appears to be something of its own, it appears to be something separate, but how is it that... We say, this is the roof, right? You picked exactly the right metaphor. We say, there's the roof, but the roof does not exist without the shingles, without the beams, without the studs of a wall to hold it up, and without a foundation, and without the earth to hold up that foundation, and without the universe to balance the earth and give it its existence.

[22:04]

So everything gives everything else its existence. So the existence of everything depends on everything else. So there is no thing in itself that exists by itself. Everything exists interdependent with everything else. That's a fairly logical explanation, but when the roof is seen or the roof is experienced... We say, there's the roof. Right? Right. So, things are and are not. And they are not what they see. So, conventionally, we say, there's the roof, there's the house, there's Sam 10. But, you know, if you start taking it apart, Sam 10, right now, depends on oxygen, fuel, which is gruel, this evening's gruel, chair, table, the wall behind.

[23:11]

So, in other words, various contrasts. And as Thich Nhat Hanh always says, all those things that are not you is what make you you. All the non-table elements are what make the table the table. How much do you think we should be concerned, or how much are people kind of traditionally concerned with the consideration that what we perceive in any occurrence is only what's accessible to human cognition and perception? How many people believe that? Well, no, I mean, how central is that to the kind of traditional understanding of emptiness? Well, whatever is true is what we should be concerned with.

[24:16]

So, in my mind, that seems to be a kind of an essential part of the kind of non-existence of the apparent parts, apparent independent. Is there a non-existence or something? I mean, we're seeing that existence is not really... something objective? Well, yeah, this is another conversation. What things actually are, you know, and how our mind creates a story out of the stuff that comes in through the senses. And then we create our We create our dream with that information. So we're quite limited because we only have eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and feelers.

[25:24]

Kind of like lobsters, in a way. And we feel our way along, and we see, and we hear our way along. But that's very limited. And then we create a picture. given the information. The mind creates a picture given the information. And all of our pictures are a little bit different. We do share a certain... There is a shared picture, and we have a shared reality. And people who deviate from the shared reality that we agree on, the agreed reality, which is not always shared, have a hard time in this life. So we have conventional reality, which is agreed upon reality, which changes all the time. But we do make it up, given the material that we have to do. So we're constantly developing our information stations to be more aware

[26:41]

of reality. The thing that concerns me or confuses me sometimes, or that I wonder about, is what I read in Buddhist literature that seems to be claims of accessibility to some kind of ultimate reality. Yes. Well, that's what it's about. That's what Buddhism is about. It's a claim to ultimate reality. So that is something that's supposed to be beyond all the kind of the function of this? Well, it's not that it's beyond the functions, you know, maybe beyond the functions is not maybe the right way to say so. It's beyond the functions, but it includes the functions. The functions can only function so far. In other words, you know, the light can only of the senses can only penetrate your close surroundings, because that's what they have to do.

[27:46]

So we're put in this situation of day and night. In the daytime we can see pretty much, you know, and in the nighttime we can't see much. And so we kind of have this, if you look at us at nighttime, we contrive ways to see. We have lanterns, electric lights. As a matter of fact, we don't even like to have, in Tassajara, electric lights so much. We like to have this kind of dim light. Because in this dim light, we can actually see better. Not with our eyes, but with our intuition. So, when you dim the light of the senses, the intuition, it's like any kind of sense. You know, when you're blind, you hear better. And when you're deaf, you see better. Not necessarily, but... And when your senses are more contained, your intuition becomes stronger.

[28:53]

And because people have developed ways of compensating, like bright lights and, you know, a lot of noise and so forth, they don't depend on intuition much anymore. And it seems a little... Intuition is suspect, you know, but intuition means directly knowing. That's it. Yeah. John, correct me if I'm wrong, but is it possible that when John uses the phrase, or in the context he just used it, ultimate reality, and you said, that's right. He said, the text, you know, throws out these terms like absolute reality or direct knowledge. You said, yeah, that's right, that is what we're dealing with. Is it possible that The way he is using it and the way I often thought it was meant is something like objective knowledge. Knowledge of some objective reality. And the way you may have just been using it is sort of as a mark or an aspect of not necessarily objective reality, but my reality.

[29:59]

Subjective reality. Which are totally different things. No, that's not what I meant. But this is what I mean. It's possible to imagine beings with completely different kinds of nervous systems and perceptual apparatus so that their quote-unquote existence would be completely invisible to us. And what I wonder then is it's also possible to imagine them having these senses and being responsive to stimuli that we don't even know exist. And then to imagine that they have an intuition as well. And what I'm wondering is whether their, maybe this seems complicated, but it seems somehow important, if their intuition in any deep sense corresponds to the intuition that you're calling ultimate reality. I don't know. When you hear me talk about the void, do not at once fall into the idea of vacuity, okay?

[31:09]

Because this involves the heresy of the doctrine of annihilation. You know, this is the question of eternity and eternal and nothing. The atheists believe there's nothing, and the eternalists believe there's endlessness of eternity. And Buddhism does not go off the end of one or the other. So, but a lot of when you read Buddhist literature, it sounds like they're talking about annihilation, which it's not. It is of the utmost importance that we should not fall into this idea, because when a person sits quietly and keeps the mind blank, that person will abide in a state of voidness of indifference, or emptiness of indifference.

[32:22]

Sitting quietly, keeping the mind blank, is a kind of meditation practice. But it's not zazen. Even though, sometimes zazen is described as a white sheet of paper. The mind like a white sheet of paper. But on a white sheet of paper, you write something. White sheet of paper is only a white sheet of paper when something's written on it. Or you could say like the vast sky, empty like the vast sky. But in the vast sky, birds fly. All kinds of things are flying in the vast sky, including space junk today. So when we sit in meditation, although the mind is void or empty, there's all kinds of stuff flying in it, going through it, projected on it. The effort to keep the mind blank is a kind of dead state.

[33:36]

That's what he's trying to tell us. To avoid all thoughts or to... He talks about mindlessness later on, on the next page. Does not mean no thinking, no thoughts. This is called the voidness of indifference. So in Zazen, we're neither attached nor indifferent. In meditation, it's called Zazen. Zazen, actually, as Dogen says, is not one of the meditations of so-called meditation practices. But that's another thing to talk about. It's not one of the many meditation practices of Buddhism. It includes all of the meditation practices of Buddhism. So he says, learn in audience the illimitable void of the universe is capable of holding myriads of things of various shape and form, such as the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the rivers, the worlds, the springs, rivulets, bushes, woods, good men, bad men, dharmas pertaining to goodness or badness,

[34:57]

deva, plains, hills, great oceans, and all the mountains of the Maha Maru. Space takes in all of these and so does the voidness of our nature. Voidness of our nature, you know, Suzuki Rishi used to call it big mind. He's always talking about big mind. Big mind includes everything. Big mind is not just our thinking mind, but our mind is a universal mind. So we have two minds. One mind is thinking mind, and the other is big mind, or essence of mind, of which our small mind is an expression. It's not something divorced, you know, or something separate. But when we open our small mind, and rely on big mind, then big mind expresses itself through us as prajna.

[36:04]

We say that the essence of mind is great because it embraces all things, since all things are within our nature. When we see the goodness or the badness of other people, we are not attracted by it nor repelled by it. nor attached to it, so that our attitude of mind is as void or empty as space. In this way, we say our mind is great. Therefore, we call it maha. So not attached, not attracted, and not repelled, but not detached. You got to say that. But there's a difference between non-attachment and detachment. Detachment means to be separated from. Where non-attachment, in this sense, means that in the midst of involvement, to not be attached to anything.

[37:11]

In the midst of our attachment, to not be attached to anything. But it does not mean to be separate from or detached. It means to be free of something that you have, not to get rid of something. Yes? Not to cling. Not to cling, in other words. Learn in audience. What the ignorant merely talk about, wise people put into actual practice with their mind. There is also a class of foolish people who sit quietly and try to keep their mind blank. They refrain from thinking of anything and call themselves great. On account of their heretical view, we can hardly talk to them. What? We can hardly talk to them. Who are these people? Hopefully they're not you. Learned audience, you should know that the mind is very great in capacity since it pervades the whole Dharmadhatu, which is the sphere of the law, that is, the universe.

[38:21]

When we use it, we can know something of everything. And when we use it to its full capacity, we shall know all, all in one and one in all. When our mind works without hindrance and is at liberty to come or to go, then it is in a state of prajna. In a state, it's at liberty to come or go. It means that it's not caught somewhere. Our mind is not caught, hung up on anything. So when our mind is not hung up on anything, when we're not defending our favorite opinion or something, the mind is free to come and go. Learn in audience, let's see, learn in audience, all prajna comes from the essence of mind and not from an exterior source. Have no mistaken notion about that. This is called self-use of the true nature. In Fukanza Zengi, at the end of Fukanza Zengi, Dogen says, and the treasure store will open and you'll be able to use it at will. self-use of the true nature.

[39:25]

Once the tatata, suchness, tatata means suchness or essence of mind, is known, one will be free from delusion forever. Since the scope of the mind is for great objects, we should not practice such trivial acts as sitting quietly with a blank mind. Do not talk about emptiness all day long without practicing it in the mind. One who does this may be likened to a self-styled king who is really a commoner. Prajna can never be attained in this way, and those who behave like this are not my disciples." In the chapter after this, he talks about what he means, his understanding of meditation and samadhi. Learned audience, what is prajna? It means wisdom.

[40:28]

If at all times and in all places we steadily keep our thought free from foolish desire and act wisely on all occasions, then we are practicing prajna. Pretty simple. Let's see, what was that again? In all places, we steadily keep our thoughts free from foolish desire and act wisely, and on all occasions, then we practice prajna. Who would have thought it was so simple? One foolish notion is enough to shut off prajna, while one wise thought will bring it forth again. People in ignorance or under delusion do not see it. They talk about it with their tongues, but in their mind they remain ignorant. They are always saying, that they practice prajna and they talk incessantly on vacuity, emptiness, but they do not know the absolute void. The heart of wisdom is prajna, which has neither form nor characteristic.

[41:32]

I can't hear. No, I can hear you. I wanted to ask a question. Okay, I'm coming to the end of the sentence. If we interpret it in this way, then indeed it is the wisdom of prajna. He says that, I don't remember exactly how it was in that modern version, but a wise thought leads to prajna or is or something? As if it had to do with the content of the thought rather than the intention. One foolish notion is enough to shut it off. And then a wise thought turns it on again. In other words, there's a curtain, right? a foolish thought and the curtain comes down, and a wise thought and the curtain goes up. I have the impression that it had more to do with the relation to the thought, you know, whether one was clinging or not clinging rather than the content of the particular thought.

[42:38]

Well, yes and no. I mean we can argue which thought, you know, We can get down to which thought is the right thought and which thought isn't. Or whether or not, if you don't pick up the thought, you're actually thinking it, right? So in zazen, all kinds of thoughts come into the mind. Foolish thoughts, enlightened thoughts, and so forth. But we don't claim them. In other words, they just pass by. They come up and they pass by, but we don't act out on them. So they're void because they're not creating karma. Those thoughts and zazen, unless you act out on the thought or unless you use it in a way that it keeps recurring or you tuck it into your pocket for use next time, although the thought is there, it's not being engaged and doesn't create karma.

[43:45]

Does that concern the functioning of alaya consciousness, like the nurturing of a seed of a good thought, giving rise to a more good thought through wisdom, or is it just nurturing of a bad, foolish thought doing the same? Well, both foolish thoughts and so-called all thoughts are, according to the theory of the alaya vijnana, of which there are various, is that the seeds of our actions and thoughts are contained in the memory bank of the alive as jnana. And then when recurring conditioned thoughts, conditions or thoughts match those seeds and water them, then they sprout. come tumbling down into the other parts of consciousness. So, our thinking, of course, obsessive thinking and repetitive thinking, does put those plant seeds.

[45:07]

So, as long as you don't have too many recurrent thoughts on the same subject, you're not reinforcing. So there's weak seeds and strong seeds. Do we look at the thoughts that come up? Are we curious about them or look at them? Without curiosity, you look at the thoughts. Free of curiosity. That's a good point. When a thought comes, it comes by itself. you know, and enters consciousness, and then you become aware of the thought, and then you return to your posture and breathing, or the thought leaves, and then another thought comes up. So the thoughts themselves become the subject of concentration while it's there, but not out of curiosity, only because it's there.

[46:10]

As soon as you start to get curious about it, then curiosity leads to forming some idea about it, which leads to either pleasant or unpleasant feelings about it, which lead to, I want to continue building, or I want to get rid of it. So then we start falling into like and dislike and discrimination. The mind becomes discriminating. So just to let the thought appear and to see it as it is and let go of it, Not push it away, but just let go of it. Just come back. It's non-discriminative activity. Because all thoughts have... You're giving the same attention to all thoughts. Not just good thoughts or bad thoughts. As soon as you start liking... And let it go. And let it come. Let it go. And not try to make your mind blank. The thought that... comes up, you have to allow intrusions into your life, so-called intrusions into your life.

[47:25]

Our life in Tassajara is pretty good, you know. We don't have too much intrusion, except when we sit zazen. But in life someplace else, your life is full of intrusion. My life is nothing but intrusions. If I start to think about something, somebody comes up and starts saying something, or something happens, I have to respond. That's life. If I try to make it some other way, then I'm trying to make something happen, because I don't like the way something's going on. Of course we have to do that. To a certain extent, we lay out our life so that we can be happy. But something's always intruding. Somebody wants something. Something needs to happen. We have to respond to all kinds of things, and they intrude. And some things we take up, some things we let go.

[48:27]

But we don't do it on the basis of, I like this, I don't like that, strictly speaking. Of course we make judgments on the basis of what we like and don't like. We don't pick and choose about what we like and don't like. When something confronts us, we just let it in and deal with it. And sometimes we get tired of it, but that has to be the life of a monk, is that you have space all the way around you and you don't have any place to hide. You have no dark corner to retreat into. If you want to become a priest, you should know this. You have no space, no place that's your own. And you just have to respond to whatever is coming to you.

[49:31]

And it's just a life of intrusion. It's not intrusion because Unless you think of it as intrusion. People have asked me, what's the training of a priest? Learning ceremonies? That's just this much. Training of a priest is to be completely free on all sides. to respond to whatever, whoever is intruding on you. And if you resist that, then you become depressed. If you could totally accept it, then it brings you to life. The people, how can you see so many people in Buddhism all the time?

[50:36]

Don't resist. No resistance. So it's not something that is wearing. It's because we have some contact, it's energizing. And we support each other. Doksan is not just for the student. It flows both ways. Yes? You know, we hear in the sutra, don't think good or bad or nothing. Yeah. But our mind is used to thinking good or bad. And if we stop, we stop thinking good or bad, my question is, Well, you can only find that out by stopping, thinking good and bad.

[51:59]

In other words, we want to be able to say, well, to have this thing in our pocket, well, I'll use this mind. When I throw away the mind of good and bad, I have this one in my pocket. But you don't know what you're going to use. When you're not thinking good and bad, you shouldn't use anything. Just be open. That's what it means. Nothing good and bad doesn't mean good and bad. It means just be open to everything, without judging. It's not like a conscious thought. Good and bad are just words, you know. If you try to figure out what's good and bad, some things are obvious and some things That's what my mind does. So what mind do I use to stop the mind that thinks good and bad? Because the one that thinks good and bad isn't going to stop thinking good and bad on its own.

[53:02]

Well, just stop thinking good and bad. Well, just don't think it. What mind does that? You know, it's not like they're different minds. It's just that they're different. knots. So you just untie these knots and then you have the thing without the knots. You have the whole rope without the knots. If you read the Sirigama Sutra, which is not a true sutra, Buddha talks about the various knots. Ananda and Buddha are talking about knots. How do you untie these knots? To get one whole piece of rope without these various configurations of mind.

[54:09]

Not that there can't be all these minds. There's only one mind. So let the one mind do the thinking. Which means, just don't hold opinions. Good and bad are opinions. Of course there's good and bad, you know. But we don't have to apply it to everything we meet. We overuse the terms. Different people have different ways of saying things, and we say, well that's a bad way and this is a good way. And if something happens to me that we don't like, we say it's bad. But it's just something that happened to us. If you just stop using the terms for a while, then you'll find out with what mind. Just stop using, say, for one day I will not use the terms good and bad, no matter what.

[55:10]

Even though it comes into your mind, you just notice that it's there, but you don't act on it. That's how you do it. When good and bad come out, you just know it, just like a thought in Zazen, but you just don't act on it, and see what mind is there. I expected to finish this thing tonight, but see, any of these questions, we can go on forever. So let me read on a little bit. Not that the questions are not good, What is paramita? What? You have a question? Yes. Not good or bad, but they are what they are. It is a Sanskrit word meaning to the opposite shore. So paramita means the opposite shore.

[56:13]

Figuratively it means above existence and non-existence. So Prajnaparamita is the wisdom that steps over to the other shore, leaps over to the other shore. But there is no other shore. It means beyond, above existence and non-existence, which is middle way. This is Mahayana middle way. above existence and non-existence. It brings us back to our first conversation about dharmas. Do they exist? Do things, you know? And your question about existence and non-existence. Middle Way is between existence and non-existence, which is where our life is.

[57:16]

So we're the walking dead. Actually, we are. Never thought of it that way before. But that's the way we are. You know, we say, I am alive, which is an arrogant statement, because we're also dead. It just happens to be this existence at this point. And life, birth, and death appear on each moment. Inhaling is life, exhaling is death, moment after moment. We, you know, taking the breath of life, expire. Expiration. But it's all life, right? Both birth and death are both life. So, life and death, it's not clear. It's not clearly one or the other. But when we say life, it includes both.

[58:20]

When we say death, it includes both. So this is to be on the other shore. And to understand this, wisdom or prajna is our intuitive understanding of this fact. That birth and death happens simultaneously. That's why our life is so uneasy. It would be simple if there was only this life. But we think there's also the end of this existence, which doesn't necessarily mean the end of life. It just means the end of this existence. When you step on an ant, it's the end of the ant's life, but it's not the end of existence.

[59:26]

So we have this space from birth to death, which is our life, but it's not, which is our existence, excuse me, but it's not the end of life. It's just a wave on the ocean of existence, on the ocean of life. So figuratively it means be, prajna means above, paramita means above, existence and non-existence. By clinging to sense objects, existence or non-existence arises, right? As soon as we cling to something, existence arises. As soon as we open our eyes, existence arises. By clinging to sense objects, existence or non-existence arises, like the up and down of the billow we see. And such a state is called, metaphorically, this shore. So this is the shore where stuff is.

[60:33]

Existence. Well, by non-attachment, a state above existence and non-existence, like smoothly running water, is attained, and this is called the opposite shore. This is why it is called Paramita. learned audience, people under illusion recite the Maha Prajnaparamita with their tongues, and while they are reciting it, erroneous and evil thoughts arise. But if they put it into practice, unremittingly they realize its true nature. To know this Dharma is to know the Dharma of Prajna, and to practice this is to practice Prajna. One who does not practice it is an ordinary person, and one who directs the mind to practice it, even for one moment, is the equal of Buddha. So we say, when we do zazen, zazen itself is enlightened activity, Buddha's activity. It's not our activity. It's Buddha's activity.

[61:35]

So it's from the side of Buddha, even though we say, this is my practice. We say my practice loosely, but we should be careful, actually, to say my zazen. In my zazen, this happened. This is Buddha's zazen, because at this time, this is Buddha's activity. So, sentient beings and Buddhas are not two. This is a very important point. So, at the same time, one is me, and me is also Buddha. But we don't go around saying, I am Buddha, right? No, it's Buddha's activity. It doesn't mean, I am Buddha. I wouldn't say that. I might say it, but it's Buddha's activity. So if we don't think in terms of my zazen and my practice and so forth, it's easier to see it as Buddha's practice and Buddha's activity and Buddha's zazen.

[62:39]

For ordinary person is Buddha and Klesha, which is defilement, is Bodhi. In other words, defilement is activity in the world, actually, in a broad sense. It's worldly activity of clinging to existence. That's what he's saying is defilement. But that defilement is also bodhi, or enlightenment. Within our worldly activity is where bodhi is, is where enlightenment is. So, stop worrying. A foolish passing thought makes one an ordinary person. I said this before. While an enlightened second thought makes one a Buddha. A passing thought that clings to sense objects is klesha. While a second thought that frees one from attachment is bodhi, enlightenment.

[63:46]

So we can be enlightened one moment and deluded the next. Learned audience, the Maha Prajnaparamita is the most exalted, the supreme, and the foremost. It neither stays nor goes nor comes. By means of it, Buddhas of the present, the past, and the future generations attain Buddhahood. We should use this great wisdom to break up the five skandhas. That's a funny way of speaking. What I think he means by break up the five skandhas is to not see the five skandhas as a self. Does anybody not know what the five skandhas are? It's okay to say so. I wouldn't have known, but they are listed right here. Okay. Form, feeling. We say them every day in the Heart Sutra. Form, feelings. perceptions, formations, and consciousness.

[64:50]

The five constituents, broadly speaking, that interdependent constituents that we think of as myself. For to follow such a practice ensures the attainment of Buddhahood. The three poisonous elements, greed, hatred, and delusion will then be turned into shila, which is good conduct, samadhi, and prajna. So greed, hatred, and delusion turn around and become good conduct, samadhi, and prajna. Learned audience, in this system of mind, that's what he says, Prajna produces 84,000 ways of wisdom, since there are that number of defilements for us to cope with. But when one is free from defilements, wisdom reveals itself and will not be separated from the essence of mind.

[65:56]

Those who understand this Dharma will be free from idle thoughts. To be free from being infatuated by one particular thought, from clinging to desire and from falsehood, put one's own essence of ta-ta-ta into operation to use prajna for contemplation and to take an attitude of neither indifference nor attachment toward all things. This is what is meant by realizing one's own essence of mind for the attainment of Buddhahood." So he tells us what it means. So his, you know, thrust is defilements, you know, are just covering. In the Prajnaparamita Sutras, Kansa used to translate as mind coverings. You know, defiled thoughts as mind coverings is how he translated it. To lift the mind coverings so that essence of mind, you know, is there,

[67:05]

It's covered over, like seeing through a glass darkly, or a hazy moon is one of the metaphors. The hazy moon of enlightenment. So this neither indifference nor attachment, I think, is very important. Because we tend to fall into one or the other. Most people feel that non-attachment is indifference. And we have to be careful not to fall into indifference. Indifference means to just not care. It's laziness. But we do care. We care about what appears in the mind. And we do care about our deportment and how we interact with everything.

[68:09]

But without attachment and without indifference, what does that mean? So that's a great kind of thing to think about. How do I approach things without attachment and without indifference? And that's really the state of mind in Zazen, to be alert without it being attached. to be awake and alert and mindful without attachment, and to note everything that happens. Learned audience, if you wish to penetrate the deepest mystery of the Dharmadhatu and the Samadhi of Prajna, you should practice Prajna by reciting and studying the Vajracchedika, that is, the Diamond Sutra, which will enable you to realize the essence of mind.

[69:12]

You should know that the merit for studying this sutra as distinctly set forth in the text, yes, is immeasurable and illimitable and cannot be enumerated in detail. This sutra belongs to the highest school of Buddhism, and the Lord Buddha delivered it especially for the very wise and quick-witted. If the less wise and slow-witted should hear about it, they would doubt its credibility. Why? For example, if it rained in Jambudvipa, that is the southern continent, through the miracle of the celestial Naga, I don't know why we need that, cities, towns, and villages would be drifting about in a flood as if they were only leaves of the date tree. should it rain in the great ocean, the level of the sea as a whole would not be affected by it. So, somebody with a small mind who can't contain his teaching would be washed away, you know, like the Sutra would just wash them away, which I'm sure it has a lot of people wash them away, you know.

[70:21]

But if a mind is like the ocean, it just receives all the water and hardly raises the water level. You don't notice the water level being raised because it can take all that rain When Mahayanists hear about the Vajracchedika, their minds become enlightened. They know that prajna is imminent in their essence of mind and that they need not rely on scriptural authority since they can make use of their own wisdom by constant practice of contemplation, which doesn't mean that they should ignore scriptural authority. It's just that they will have it. Just making a point. The prajna, imminent in the essence of mind of everyone, may be likened to the rain, and the moisture of which refreshes every living thing, trees and plants, as well as sentient beings. When rivers and streams reach the sea, the water carried by them merges into one body.

[71:29]

This is another analogy. Learned audience. When rain comes in a deluge, plants which are not deeply rooted are washed away, and eventually they succumb. This is the case with the slow-witted." Slow-witted, I think, is not a very good translation. I think what he means is the gradualists, people who study gradually. This is the case with the people who study gradually when they hear about the teaching of the Southern School. They want to add one thing to another. This is a criticism. You can see where the criticisms are coming, you know. Even talking about the Vajrachanika is a kind of saying, you should study this instead of the Lankavatara Sutra. So the prajna imminent in them is exactly the same as that in the very wise people, but they fail to enlighten themselves when the dharma is made known to them.

[72:35]

Why? Because they are thickly veiled by erroneous views and deep-rooted defilements in the same way as the sun may be thickly veiled by cloud and unable to show the light until the wind blows the cloud away. Prajna does not vary with different persons. What makes the difference is whether one's mind is enlightened or deluded. One who does not know the essence of mind and is under the delusion that Buddhahood can be attained by outward religious rites is called the slow-witted. One who knows the teaching of the Sudden School and attaches no importance to rituals and whose mind functions always under right views so that one is absolutely free from defilements or contaminations is said to have known the essence of mind. I want to clarify rituals here. The Vedas, you know, were... In Vedic times, the Vedic religion was nothing but rituals. And people put their religious life in the hands of the priests, who were the intermediaries.

[73:41]

And the rituals was the religion. And Buddha said, you can't, you know, get to it through rituals. That's what he meant. He didn't mean that you shouldn't have some formality or some way of procedure to do something. I don't see what we do as rituals. Because a ritual is meant to invoke something, like bring heaven down to man, or to create some special state, or to make something happen. Although I wouldn't say there are no rituals, we do have rituals, but that's not the basis of practice. I learned in audience the mind should be framed in such a way that it will be independent of external or internal objects.

[74:49]

External objects are this, and internal objects are what? Thoughts, ideas, opinions. What we think of as inside and outside. At liberty to come or to go, free from attachment, and thoroughly enlightened without the least beclouding. One who is able to do this is of the same standard required by the sutras of the Prajna School. Prajnaparamita Sutras. Learned audience, all sutras and scriptures of the Mahayana and Hinayana schools, as well as the 12 sections of the canonical writings, were provided to suit the different needs and temperaments of various people. That's an interesting statement. You know, we don't have so many schools of Buddhism in America. Well, there are some, but... Various schools. There are many schools of Buddhism, and for people who can't do Zen, they can do some other kind of Buddhist practice.

[75:57]

And probably, eventually, there will be practices for people for whom Zen is not the most desirable way for their temperament. Anyway... What? Well, I would say, you know, like Pure Land Buddhism. That kind of extreme. Pure Land Buddhism, or Buddhism which revolves around a certain sutra, you know, like the Lotus Sutra. There are many Lotus Sutra schools. Soka Gakkai, actually, is one of them, and it's very popular around the world. Anyway, I don't want to get involved in that. It is upon the principle that prajna is latent in every person that the doctrines expounded in these books are established.

[77:03]

If there were no human beings, there would be no dharmas. Hence, we know that all dharmas, all the teachings, are made for people. and that all the sutras owe their existence to the preachers. Since some are wise, the so-called superior, and some are ignorant, the so-called inferior, the wise preach to the ignorant when the latter asks them to do so. Through this, the ignorant may attain sudden enlightenment, and their mind thereby becomes illuminated. And then they are no longer different from the wise. Learned audience. Now, this sentence doesn't make sense to me, so I changed it. It says, learned audience. Without enlightenment, there would be no difference between a Buddha and other living beings. I think what he meant to say is, learned audience, except for enlightenment, there would be no difference between a Buddha and other living beings. Enlightenment is what makes the difference, because they're the same. Maybe it makes sense, but it doesn't make sense to me.

[78:10]

Anyway, except for enlightenment is what makes the difference between an ordinary sentient being and a Buddha. While a gleam of enlightenment is enough to make any living being equal, the equal of a Buddha. Since all dharmas are imminent in our mind, there is no reason why we should not realize intuitively the real nature of tatata suchness. The Bodhisattva Sila Sutra says, our essence of mind is intrinsically pure and if we knew our mind and realized what our nature is, all of us would attain Buddhahood. As the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra says, at once they become enlightened and regain their own mind. Learned audience, when the fifth ancestor preached to me, I became enlightened immediately after he had spoken and spontaneously realized the real nature of ta-ta-ta. For this reason, it is my particular object to propagate the teaching of this sudden school so that learners may find bodhi at once and realize their true nature by introspection of mind.

[79:20]

Should they fail to enlighten themselves, they should ask the pious and learned Buddhists who understand the teaching of the highest school to show them the right way. It is an exalted position, the office of a pious or sincere, something like that, and learned Buddhist who guides others to realize the essence of mind. Through that person's assistance, one may be initiated into all meritorious dharmas. The wisdom of the past, the present, and the future Buddhas, as well as the teachings of the twelve sections of the Canon, are imminent in our mind, but in case we fail to enlighten ourselves, we have to seek the guidance of the pious and learned ones. On the other hand, those who enlighten themselves need no extraneous help. But a self-enlightened person is called Prachekabuddha. Yes? What about that statement of the patriarch earlier, who said that if one doesn't realize one's existence of mind, there's no use in speaking Buddhism? Well, people say all kinds of things that are contradictory. But it's true.

[80:25]

I think it's backwards, though. You see, it's a funny statement. It's trying to make a point. If you try and penetrate the meaning of that statement, you'll come around to realizing that it is just a statement that's made to make a point. And the point that's being made is that You can study Buddhism forever, but if you don't realize your essence of mind, it's meaningless. So you should study Buddhism, even though you don't understand the essence of mind. Even though you don't realize your essence of mind, you should still study Buddhism, you know. But just make your point, saying, this is what it's about. We shouldn't take anything too literally. I kind of have to weigh and judge some of these statements.

[81:29]

Okay. It is wrong to insist upon the idea that without the advice of the pious and learned we cannot obtain liberation. So he's saying, you know, you can do this on your own. Actually, the fact is that everybody who has enlightenment enlightens themselves. even though the Master did something and the student was enlightened, it was because of the student's readiness. So even though we all practice together, we're all self-enlightened beings. And there's nothing anybody can... I don't say there's nothing anybody can do for you, but enlightenment is through your own effort. And when somebody becomes enlightened, when the Master goes, boom, it's because of their own effort. It's like the analogy of the chicken and the hen, the chick and the hen pecking at the egg at the same time.

[82:43]

It's even a koan. A little quicker. The chicken and the hen pecking at the same time. The chicken hears the chick pecking at the egg, and knows that it's time for the chicken to get out. So, just at the right moment, the chicken goes, and the chick goes, and the egg goes, a crack or something. Which I don't think actually happens. I don't think chickens and chicks do that. I've never seen one. But it's a great analogy anyway. But it's, you know, It's the chick's effort to get out of the egg, out of the shell. And the hand just, you know, at the right moment, helps in some way. So the final, you know, the final little tap that allows the chick to crack the egg.

[83:44]

That sometimes happens and sometimes not. But it's the chick's effort. But it's good to have learned and pious friends to help you. It's easy to get lost and to think that we've got something that we haven't got. Because it is by our innate wisdom that we enlighten ourselves and even the extraneous help and instructions pious and learned friend would be of no use if we were deluded by false doctrines and erroneous views. Should we introspect our mind with real Prajna, all erroneous views would be vanquished in a moment, and as soon as we know the essence of mind, we arrive immediately at the Buddha state to keep saying this over and over." I really wanted to get to the poem, and I can't, so I'll stop there. And the next time I'll finish with the poem,

[84:50]

and go on to the next, which is not chapter three, questions and answers, but to chapter four, which is Samadhi and Prajna. And if you have anything, you know, if you don't know what to talk about, Yen Dong-Ka-San, you could bring a question from this. May I...

[85:30]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ