I vow to taste the truth and not to target its purpose. Good evening everybody. Sorry about that. About having to, if there's any confusion about using this room instead of the usual one for the conference. And, uh, I think that next week is October 1st, right? The Wednesday, Tuesday night. And I think that, uh, in fact, I will go to the reading. Because now I have an excuse, I have to park. Philip will, he needs a ride, he's going to go. So, uh, I would encourage all of you to... So there won't be class next Tuesday, but there will be a class on Thursday. So I realize that not everybody can make it. But I will conduct class for everybody who's here. And I won't be expecting you to come, so.

[01:03]

But I feel like I... You know, I can't make it at the end because we don't have enough time for it at the end. So, uh, I hope you don't mind. And if you can, I recommend that you go to hear Gary Snyder's reading at the Herbst Theater in San Francisco, reading from his poem, Mountains and Rivers Without End. So, I hope that there aren't a bunch of people who aren't here to get this message from him. Let's see. Charlie? Yes. Okay, so, Hokyo Zamai. So before, I was having great fun studying for this class tonight. I made, as you see, diagrams and drawings and consulted the I Ching and everything else. I don't know if I'll get that far, but I hope so. Can you all see that?

[02:04]

Any more in the room? So, uh, quick, uh, last time we discussed, um, the meaning is not in the words, yet it responds to the inquiring impulse. And I was saying, the meaning is not in the words, and yet it comes up in the midst of life. So it's not hidden. It's not somewhere else. It comes up in the midst of life. Uh, if you're excited, it becomes a pitfall. Then you will make mistakes as soon as you do something, and then you'll immediately fall into a kind of static self-consciousness, and that will be your life. It won't be lively. It is bright just at midnight. Just to depict it in literary form is to relegate it to defilement. Words don't express it.

[03:06]

They only make you think that you're hearing it, which is to defile it. It's bright just at midnight. It doesn't appear at dawn. It acts as a guide for beings. Its use removes all pain. Although it's not in words, it does it at midnight when you can't see anything. It's there. When you look around and you think you're seeing it, it's not there. In other words, you can't grasp it. You can't define it. You can't name it. And yet it's everywhere in the midst of life. In fact, it acts as a guide for beings. Its use removes all pains, which means it is the essential principle of all life. And to be in accord with it is to remove yourself from all suffering. Even though you can't say what it is, you can't grasp it, you can't know it, it's everywhere. It's life. It comes in the middle of life. It's known. So Robin, who just came in, she made a translation of those lines,

[04:19]

using all the other translations put together she kind of came up with. The meaning does not reside in words, yet is revealed in response to inquiry. Excitedness becomes a pitfall, missing the moment one falls into retrospective hesitation. Neither ignore nor confront what is like a great massive fire. Remember, you get too close, you burn up. You're too far away, you freeze. So how do you get just right? Even to depict it in literary form immediately defiles it. Clearly illuminating at midnight, unnoticed in the morning light, it serves as a standard for beings. Use it to uproot all suffering. But not a way of action. Still, it is not without words. It's not that the words express it, but not in words. It's like facing a jewel mirror, and that's the part we're going to get to next. But I wanted to just, I thought, in this particular instance,

[05:22]

Shengyan had a really good commentary on some of those lines. I wanted to share some of his insights with you. Some of you who have been studying this commentary maybe appreciated this. But I want to read a couple pages for you, because I think it's really good. If it is only expressed in language, the precious mirror will be stained. Any conception, and this is his commentary, any conception of enlightenment, even that of a precious mirror, is wrong. To have a conception is to stain the mirror, or to paint over it. No matter how beautiful a picture you paint, the mirror no longer reflects. I have been to restaurants with mirror-covered walls, which give an illusion of spaciousness. But if someone were to write on a wall, this is a mirror, then the illusion would be ruined. Left alone, the mirror reflects.

[06:23]

But once something covers it, the reflection disappears. There was a Chan master who asked, What is it like after enlightenment? He answered, It can't be described. If you try to describe it, anything you say will be wrong. The person who asked was pouring rice gruel from a large pot into small bowls. When he heard the answer, he said, What a nice pot of gruel. Too bad it has been defiled by some rat shit. So... So then he says about that, Even saying that enlightenment is inconceivable or indescribable is wrong. Because you say, Oh, it's indescribable and you can't talk about it. See, that's already saying something about it. It's already wrong. Any description stains the precious mirror. In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti did not answer such questions. That is the true answer.

[07:25]

Even a gesture is better than words. Although words such as inconceivable and indescribable do appear in the sutras, they are part of rational explanations that help convey the gradual teaching. Zen rarely uses these words because they are indirect. If the story I just told you involved an enlightened Zen master, a more reasonable answer to the question might have been, Let's eat the gruel. There's no point discussing this. That is direct. Right? It's simple. If an enlightened Zen master answered such questions, it would be like painting a mirror or leaving rat shit in rice gruel. It is not important that students believe a master is enlightened as long as they benefit from the teachings. Then, At midnight it is truly bright, by daylight it no longer shows. It's this translation in the same lines. It says, Common sense tells us that midnight is dark. Daylight, bright. But the poem does not speak of light. It speaks of the precious mirror, namely self-nature.

[08:25]

So, precious mirror is awakening, enlightenment itself, self-nature. Self-nature does not change. The environment changes. The mirror does not darken in samsara and it does not brighten in enlightenment. In enlightenment, self-nature does not manifest and become visible. And in samsara, self-nature is not defiled. In other words, whether we call it enlightenment or delusion, self-nature is just the same. Either way, nothing actually changes. You do not practice in order to make self-nature manifest. You practice to eliminate vexations, which is his word for defilements or delusions. Vexations. So, in other words, you don't practice to get enlightened. You simply practice to eliminate your delusions. When delusions or vexations disappear, self-nature naturally manifests. It is not that self-nature appears,

[09:29]

rather vexations disappear. This is an important point to remember. It's like Dogen saying, enlightenment is to be deluded throughout delusion. So, enlightenment is an illusion. It's a fantasy. It's an idea that we think that we're grasping for that just isn't true. All we need to do is turn toward our defilements, our confusion, and see them for what they are and let go of them. So, when we're in the middle of our confusion and we're thinking, if only I was enlightened, I would be great. If I had a different mind that would be enlightened and not this stupid mind, this is automatically a big mistake because it's just this stupid mind and letting go of it, within it, being with it and letting go of it. That is the enlightenment, he's saying. So, enlightenment is not the emergence of something new. It's the removal of vexation. Anything else would just be adding to your already deluded mind.

[10:30]

One more. It serves as the law which governs all things. Use it to uproot all suffering. That's the part, you know, it acts as a guide for beings. It's use removes all pains. Previously, I emphasized that practice affects vexation, not self-nature, because self-nature is unchanging. So, why talk about self-nature? You cannot change it or make it manifest. What is the use of the concept at all? The Buddha speaks about self-nature in order to help sentient beings who still need to practice. Self-nature is meaningless to the Buddhas and ancestors. Self-nature is meaningless to the Buddhas and ancestors, but they speak of an enlightened state so that they may urge ordinary beings to strive toward the precious mirror. Sentient beings need goals and attachments, so it is necessary to speak of a precious mirror. That is why Deng Xiang wrote the poem. The teachings speak of goals, of attachment, of an enlightened state,

[11:35]

but when we practice, we must adopt an attitude of not seeking, not naming. In this way we progress. So, we have to make a big attitude, a big effort, but our attitude should be one of not seeking, not naming, just being with whatever is occurring. This is the only way to make progress. A target must be set, but it is a false target. It is like, I often say, enlightenment is like the horizon. You are always walking toward the horizon, but you never get there. The horizon keeps advancing, but the fact is you are always at the horizon, right? So, it is like that. It is a target, but it is a false target. People need it for incentive and direction, but it is only a device. If you practice correctly, the target disappears when you reach it. If the target is still there, in other words, if you think, great, this is what I have been waiting for, then you know that that is not it.

[12:37]

The target is not attachment. When there is no attachment, then there is no suffering. For instance, in the relationship between teacher and student, there should be no attachment to labels. The teacher should not think, I am the teacher and she is the student. If such thoughts exist, problems will arise. And I believe this is really true. Because the teacher and the student are attached to illusory concepts like teacher and student. With this kind of attitude, the teacher might get upset if the student were to rebel or leave. The correct attitude should be, if you treat me like a teacher, then I am a teacher. If you treat me as something else, then that is what I am. In your everyday life, it would be upsetting if a friend left you, or an enemy troubled you, or a friend became an enemy. The Buddha speaks of the suffering that arises in people who are dear to one another

[13:39]

and must separate, or in people who are hostile to one another and must come into conflict. Anyway, I wanted to read you that part because I thought that was... He's a very commentary speaking man. Sometimes he's very simple, and so sometimes he doesn't do justice, I think, to the philosophical depths of the poem, but then again, maybe it's better off not doing justice. So all that's by way of reviewing the last part, and now we come to the part that says, it's like facing a jewel mirror, form and image behold each other. You are not it, it actually is you. So this is a really juicy part, and this is in a way the philosophical heart of the poem. Oh, Jordan, what were you going to say? It's okay. It is like facing a jewel mirror,

[14:45]

which is the primary image in the poem from which the poem gets its title. Form and image behold each other, you are not it, it actually is you. So I thought a lot about this today, and I'll give you some of my thoughts, and then we will look at, go back to the Tozan story. Remember in the beginning I quoted you some stuff from the Record of Tozan, the author of the poem, and I'm going to go back and quote again from the part in the Record of Tozan where he gives a poem that's almost the same as these lines. So It is like facing a jewel mirror, form and image behold each other, you are not it, it actually is you. So you see the idea that there's the object and there's the mirror. You put an object in front of the jewel mirror, this mirror which is

[15:48]

pure consciousness or awakening or self-nature itself, put an object in front of it, and the object is exactly reflected in the mirror. The object and the reflection are staring at one another in the mirror. That's the idea. So the mirror, you know, is like awakening, enlightenment, but it's also this poem is comes out of the mind only philosophy of Buddhism. So it's about consciousness. Consciousness in its pure state, in its deepest state is the same as suchness, is the same as self-nature, is the same as enlightenment, is the same as awakening, is the same as the jewel mirror. So when you put an object in front of consciousness, the object and the consciousness

[16:52]

relate to each other in the way that this line depicts. It is like facing a jewel mirror. Form and image behold each other. You are not it. You and it being consciousness and object. Consciousness does not reflect the object. But the object is not reflected in consciousness, but the consciousness includes the object. In other words, subjectivity is exactly reality. But if you grasp it as subjectivity and define it as subjectivity, it's not it. So he is not...

[17:53]

I'm getting confused myself here. You don't know what I mean, do you? It says here, consciousness, our subjectivity, isn't the same as the object. So what we see in our mind when we look at something or think of something, it isn't the same as the object. Nothing we think, in other words, is accurate. Nothing we perceive is accurate. Yet the object isn't other than consciousness. So it's not that there's an object outside of consciousness that is accurate and our consciousness isn't accurate, assuming a pure consciousness. But it's just that the object isn't other than the consciousness. Now, I was thinking about this. I don't know how many of you know Lou Hartman. But Lou Hartman is our elder statesman. He's our oldest priest in Zen Center.

[18:53]

He's about 81 or 82. And every time we have a Shuso ceremony where everybody asks a question of the Shuso, Lou Hartman asks exactly the same question. He's been asking the same question for about 20 years. He shows up to every ceremony and he asks the same question. And I finally understood, you know, in contemplating these lines, what his question was. Because his question is, the Six Ancestors, and those of you who've been to these ceremonies, you'll recognize this, right? The Six Ancestors says, from the first not a thing is. I say, this is Lou talking, I say, that's why we make it up. What do you say? He asks that monk every time, the same question. The Six Ancestors says, from the first not a thing is. I say, that's why we all make it up. What do you say? So am I, I'm not thinking straight, so I'm just going to read you my note here. Earlier today, presumably

[19:53]

I was thinking straighter. Although... Everything is made up. Objects are not other than consciousness. There's no real object outside of consciousness. Our inmost life is totally real. Our perceptions are real. Yet if we grasp this, or define this, we're off. So if we were to take our subjectivity totally seriously, this would be called insanity, right? Or at the very least, kind of exaggerated self-centeredness. And yet, there are no objects that are actually outside the mind. So, this is a dangerous territory, right? It's a tricky territory. What does it mean to say that the whole world is made up by me? The whole world is made up by my consciousness. How do I understand that without falling into

[20:56]

a kind of insanity or self-centeredness that I exaggerate this idea? And yet it's really true. He is not me, yet I am. I am not he, yet... You are not he. Yeah, yeah. You are not it. It actually is... what? You. So, here's the Tozan part. Tozan, remember when I quoted you this before, he brings up the issue of responsibility. I can talk to you about this. Just before leaving, Dungshan asked, if after many years someone should ask if I am able to portray the Master's likeness, how should I respond? If somebody asks me what your teaching is, how should I respond? After remaining quiet for a while, Yunyan said, just this person. Remember that? Dungshan was lost in thought. Yunyan said,

[21:57]

Acharya, having assumed the burden of this great matter, you must be very cautious. And remember I gave you the footnote which says that just this person is a Chinese legal term that the person gives when they are guilty of a crime. They say, just this person at high is the actual literal meaning, meaning, yes, this is me, I'm guilty. And then when he says, you must be very cautious, that's also a phrase that's given to the person to accept responsibility. So he's telling him, if you want to know what's my teaching, he says, you are responsible. You are completely responsible. That means for everything. Not just your own conduct, but you are responsible for everything. Be careful. So this is nothing outside your mind. Dungshan remained dubious about what Yunyan had said. Later, as he was crossing a river, he saw his reflected image and experienced the great awakening

[23:00]

to the meaning of the previous exchange and proposed the following gatha. Earnestly avoid seeking without, lest it recede from you. I am walking alone, yet everywhere I meet him. So it's only within, and yet, in my aloneness, everywhere I'm meeting the other in the midst of my aloneness. He is now no other than myself, but I am not now him. So everything is not now other than myself means I include the whole universe in my mind, but I am not him. If I take this little mind and say, oh, that's everything is in my little mind, I'm boss of the universe. I can do whatever I want, and so on and so on. No. He is me, but I am not now him.

[24:01]

It must be understood in this way in order to merge with suchness. Then, I found a passage, a contemporary passage, that I thought was similar to this, which I wanted to share with you. And after that, we'll talk, see what we think. And it's on this same issue of nature of consciousness, the relationship between consciousness and so-called objects, how there are no objects outside of mind, and yet, if we identify mind with self, we're wrong. Mind is to be identified with Buddha, which is not different from self, so it's not inside or outside. What does that have to do with responsibility? This is a contemporary story, an awakening story written by

[25:01]

a woman in Sydney, Australia. And that's why she talks about different plants and animals that you won't recognize because they're from Australia. I'd also like to tell you about an experience I had on Christmas Day. I was sitting on the veranda with S, that's her daughter, when a rainbow lorikeet, which I assume is a bird, a rainbow lorikeet, came down and walked along, inspecting the crumbs we offered it and checking out S's foot, feet. This was really unusual. They are treetop birds, and I had never seen one at our place before. It was really a Christmas gift to have that contact. After S wandered off, I continued sitting here reading Joko's book. I finished reading an essay that ended with something like

[26:06]

no past, no present, no future, and then I wanted to cry. I plunged into alternate crying and laughing, overwhelming and very strong, in which I was aware of the gum trees, eucalyptus trees, in the gully in a way I had never seen them before. They seemed somehow freed of the past and future I usually see in them, freed of all our projections, every single thing we see we cover over with all of our projections. But now, these were freed of all the past and future I usually see in them. Out of this came words to the effect, nothing and nobody needs me and I'll never stop looking after any of them. Nothing and nobody needs me and I'll never stop looking after any of them. This came back to me on and off during the day as some sort of divine joke

[27:08]

and also as a commitment for the rest of my life. I have lost the immediacy of it now but it is one of the lights that will sometimes gleam through the fog for me. That evening I went up to the lookout in the dark and remember laughing and crying with the kookaburras. I also saw the bats flying over the first time for ages that I have seen them and also a gift, like the lorikeets. Isn't that a nice story? This also captures it to me, this idea that no one and nothing needs me and I will never stop taking care of any of them. So I am totally responsible for everything and nothing requires my responsibility. In other words, it is responsibility with freedom. Responsibility without pressure, without ego, without self-clinging. Total responsibility

[28:10]

for the whole world which is mine, which is me but not limiting this to think that I have to have pressure to do something. So I feel that I am not explaining myself too well but I think you kind of get the idea in between what I am trying to say. Another way of looking at this besides using mirror and image to denote consciousness and object is to use mirror and image to denote the person, the self and the Dharmakaya or the Buddha. So consciousness stands, instead of consciousness and remember now, this consciousness is with a capital C not limited to the final consciousness but true consciousness. Consciousness equals Dharmakaya and object equals

[29:11]

self. So the relationship between object and consciousness is the same as the relationship between self and Dharmakaya or Buddha. How does it go? He is not I, I am what? You are not it, actually it's you. You are not it. I am not Buddha but Buddha is nothing other than me. If I say I am Buddha then I am projecting, I am holding on, I am clinging to a self. But if I look for a Buddha outside of myself, there is no such Buddha. Right? So we are not enlightened but enlightenment is nothing other than our mind, our deluded mind. Right? So this is a little hard

[30:13]

to kind of think about but I think you get the idea of it. The main point is that it's nothing outside of ourselves. It's right here, radically close. There is no enlightenment somewhere else, there is no Buddha somewhere else outside of us. And yet, if we grasp our deluded mind and put it forward and say this is Buddha, then that's not it. So, it's like Master Sheng Yen says, all we have to do is appreciate our delusions fully and accept them and let them go. Then we can appreciate and realize what Dung Chan is saying here. So now, let's raise questions. I probably won't be able to respond. But still you can raise questions anyway. Yes, Martin. I'm just a little confused because earlier it said don't have an image

[31:13]

and then it said do have an image and now it says don't have an image and yet do have an image. And I'm wondering if to sit and say let's have no delusions is actually impossible. You have to have an image to work with so that you learn what is delusion and then what is enlightenment. If you don't start with enlightenment, you don't start with anything at all. And so you don't actually do it, you don't practice. Right. That's what Master Sheng Yen was saying in his commentary that the Buddha's advanced enlightenment is because we need that goal, we need that effort to make in that direction. So we need that. But when you become a Buddha you don't see any enlightenment. You actually don't see there's any such a thing. Yeah. So it's a necessary but provisional thing. And in giving a commentary that tells us that that's so, even though maybe that's not true for us, at least that it enables us

[32:14]

to take the edge off our obsession with enlightenment or with wishing that we didn't have the confusion that we have. But we realize when we hear over and over and over again there is no enlightenment outside of our confusion. It helps to hear that, even though we probably need to have that striving towards something that isn't really there. That's pretty much what Sheng Yen says in his commentary. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, that line is very similar to what is it again? You are not it, it actually is you. That's pretty similar, right? You know? Pretty similar, yeah. Kind of a point of view shift. Yeah, right. It's a shift in... Yeah, like nothing is different. It's just a question of how you stand

[33:15]

in relation to the same stuff. Nothing is different at all. Yeah. Yeah. Are you thinking of something to say? Yes. Nothing and nobody needs me, but I will never give up looking after them. Meaning caring for them. Caring for them. Mind that they'll... You call it the trees, which you mentioned, so the trees don't need her. They exist without her. Yet we're talking about they exist also only in your mind, in your consciousness. But to say they don't need me is a sort of exhilaration in getting out of yourself. You need them. Like the redwood trees,

[34:15]

the redwood trees at the headwaters don't need us. You need them. And they don't exist because of us. Yet they do, as we're saying, because our perceptions make them exist for us. But at least my understanding gives me a certain exhilaration that I need them. The breadth of my existence is made tolerable and wonderful because they're there. And that's one part, one fact. Another fact is that they are nothing other than you. Because of perception. Because of consciousness. They are... Consciousness is your mind and your thoughts and delusions and joys and sorrows and the redwood trees are one thing

[35:16]

in your consciousness. But this understanding of needing or not needing gives you a path out there to get out of any kind of narrow self. Yes. It's liberation. It's a cry of liberation. Yes. Yes. So when she says, nothing and no one needs me and I'll never stop looking after any of them. That's a commitment for my life in terms of the redwood trees. What she's saying is I will do everything that I possibly can to look after and care for and help the redwood trees. Even though they don't need me. So to me, this is a very, very important point. Because somebody in communication with somebody far away has been saying, all these troubles going on at the Zen Center,

[36:18]

you must feel so burdened. And I said, no. Why should I feel burdened? So... Like that, you know. Nothing needs me. You know, it's not my responsibility to do anything. Things are going to be what they are. And yet it is my commitment to do everything that I can to do what I think is right and make things better and so on. But I'm not worried about it. That's how we are with our children too. We hope. I mean... No, but they are so much bigger and fascinating and ingenious and everything than we. Because they are separate entities. They're fascinating, whether they're babies or they're grown or they're what. Yeah. And we see them on that level of kind of magnificence. But we're tempted. Yeah, exactly. I would hope that this is a beautiful

[37:18]

attitude for a parent. Probably it's not true for most parents. But I think it's exactly so, you know. Right. What is it, do you think, that gives rise to this commitment or to this feeling of responsibility even though... Is it like... Even though they don't need me. Does that itself a spark? For example, in our story that brings up this idea of the next step is, well, they don't need me so of course I'm responsible. Yeah, it's interesting. You said even though and I glanced at the sentence which I wrote down. It doesn't say even though. It says and. It says no one and nothing needs me and I'll never stop looking after any of them. So I think that the second part comes up because the nothing and no one needs me, I mean that could sound like a terrible... You could imagine

[38:20]

some lonely person staring at the sky saying nothing and no one needs me. But this is not like that. This is like a liberative nothing and no one needs me which is tantamount to love itself. It's really love is what it is. In other words, a tremendous feeling of connection to everything in freedom and a connection in freedom without attachment. Given that I'm looking at this beautiful eucalyptus tree and this world is so shining and bright and my heart just goes out to everything and everyone and all I want to do is whatever I can do to offer. I'll never stop. This is the Bodhisattva's vow, right? Sentient beings are numberless. We could also say sentient beings don't exist. I, Bodhisattva. So it's as though this would be like the natural

[39:23]

state of affairs. And seeing that things don't need me is like saying, it's like clearing the way. It's things that were in the way, namely my projection on the trees and so forth. Those things are no longer there. And what seems to open up is just the natural response. Exactly. So the juncture to save all sentient beings and work for the benefit of others is not a moralistic thing like you should be good and you should work for others. It isn't that kind of thing. It's the kind of thing of the naturally arising joy and what else could be done? What else could you do? In fact, whatever you did would be automatically. It has to be for the benefit of others if that's how you stand in relation

[40:23]

to your world. It seems like that is a really beautiful feeling and perspective to have on things. And it feels really positive. You know, this sense of connection and generosity and liberation. I feel that there's a but coming. Right, but... I can tell the rhythm of the sentence. Yeah, the cadence. But, here you go. But if that's so, then how come the language of the poem and frankly the language of a lot of the things that we read and study, is so much comprised of knots and negatives. Even the phrase its use removes all pains seems very negative compared to its use provides all bliss or all joy. The whole beginning of the poem

[41:23]

is like, if you do this, you're messed up because of X. If you do that, you're messed up because of Y. But the poem doesn't have a lot to say about like, but if you get it just if you don't do either X or Y then you're fine. We don't talk about the fine part a lot. I mean, it sounds... I'm not saying that's good. No, no, I think it's true. And frankly, I have friends who when they talk to me about Dharma or whatever, that's often times what they're fastened on. It's like, isn't that that thing where nothing exists and everything is suffering and kind of everything is a big bummer, you know. So, given that there's this whole other side of the Dharma, there's the connection stuff why is that so hard to... Well, I'll respond to that and it could be that Robin and Jordan also want to respond to that too. Well, let me go first before I... I'm in a bad place, man. If I don't get this out it's gone.

[42:23]

You know, what you say I think is very true actually, you know. I think that it's true that Buddhism does approach things from that end. And it reminds me of when I do the Jewish Buddhist retreats it's very interesting because the Jewish people say it's all the stuff about God and God in the heavens and God the great and God this and God that. I can't relate to that. You know, it doesn't make any sense to me at all. I can't understand that language. What I know is I'm in a mess and my marriage is falling apart and this, you know and this doesn't speak to me at all. You know, God, who cares about God? I just can't relate to it. So, I often have come to the conclusion in these retreats that the language, the theistic language and the language of Judaism and Christianity comes from the perfection and God and all this stuff and Buddhism comes from suffering because when you have a practice in which sitting and with the mind is the primary practice, it's pretty hard to avoid noticing, you know, that there's a lot

[43:28]

of troubles that are happening. In fact, you sit there long enough and then you see troubles that you didn't even know existed. You thought you had troubles and now you see the almost limitless dimension to it. So I think it's sort of two different, and you could say well gee, this way is one sided and Buddhism is one sided. It's so involved with suffering and so on. I think that's a valid criticism, but to me I have to say that for this day and age it seems like starting with suffering simply is more real to more people right now, you know, because the suffering that people feel is pretty apparent, you know. And if you try to say to somebody like, you know, forget your suffering, just merge with the bliss of the Godhead. Laughter You're out of air. Yeah, I don't know how all that's going to work, frankly. I mean, I guess you could have a lot of chanting and incense and all that and try to pump it up, but even so

[44:29]

I don't know. So anyway, Robin and Jordan, you want to go first? I'll cut you off, so why don't you go first? So, you know, Buddhism starts with suffering. And you too? And you might think that this song, Jewel Mirror Samadhi is medicine for the suffering, but actually I think that it's just a really beautifully wrapped placebo. Laughter And you think that, you know, there's a delivery package there that sort of like you take in because you think you're taking medicine, but when it gets unwrapped inside of you, you know, these contradictions, it's really just a mirror, a jewel mirror facing you. You're facing a jewel mirror seeing yourself, and when it does a good job, it's a better placebo. When it falls off to the side, it's when it actually is medicine. Yeah, there is no suffering. Yeah. And I often tell the story in an early sutra where a king, and I'm interrupting a lot of people,

[45:32]

I guess that's the advantage of sitting in the teacher's seat. Laughter This king says, Gee Buddha, you're always talking about suffering and that's all I ever hear you talk about. And this other place, this other teacher always talks about God and bliss and all that. But when I notice your disciples, they always seem to be smiling all the time. And when I go over there, even though they're talking about bliss and happiness, they're not so happy. So that's curious, the king said. He said this in an early sutra. Sam, go ahead and interrupt. I kind of hesitated to speak up after listening to Mick just because I thought I was going to confuse myself more. But when we first said the sentence nothing and nobody needs me, it just made me think about the words nothing and nobody. Because that's kind of saying everything and everybody needs me. Because when you think about it, really, what is nothing and nobody? Mm-hmm. I mean, nobody needs me. You can kind of think of somebody over there as nobody. Nobody needs me.

[46:32]

Because infinity and nothingness meet at the edges, right? Mm-hmm. That's why I always say, sentient beings are numberless. There are no sentient beings. It would be almost the same thing. Robin? Yeah, okay. A couple things. Just to respond to that thing about the you can't describe this. You can't talk about this thing. Mm-hmm. So it seems like the only way you can talk about it is to say not this and not that. Because it seems like that whole practice is letting go of those things that it's not. Mm-hmm. There is no way to directly get at it other than by letting go of everything that it's not. Mm-hmm. So that seems to be appropriate

[47:35]

as data sharing. Oh dear, I can't remember. Sam just said something about the nothing and nobody. And when I first heard that sentence, I really related to the nothing and nobody needs me because I have been that incredible desperate person sobbing for a long time because nothing and nobody needs me. And it was so refreshing to me to see oh, well, okay. And that there was more. That the story went on from there. That I didn't have to go somewhere else to meet the story. That it could pick me up here and we could go somewhere a little lighter. Mm-hmm. That's great. By the way, that's from A.K. Hiroshi's new book, Original Dwelling Place. Brand new book. So I recommend it. It's really good. That story I just read, yeah. It's in there. There's a section called, I think, Herald Birds in which he tells a number of little stories like that involving

[48:36]

birds and awakening. Kevin was next and then back to Martin. Okay, so when I hear the line nothing and nobody needs me, the impression I get is one of clear disentanglement. Mm-hmm. You know, it's pretty clear disentanglement. And what strikes me is that a lot of our suffering comes from our entanglement. Exactly. So I think that's why Buddhism sort of focuses on the suffering aspect because we're entangled. That's just it. Mm-hmm. Yeah, freedom. Freedom. We don't use that word so much. We use awakening or realization but actually it's freedom, liberation, freedom. Freedom from our being tied up in knots with ourselves and with our world. What a relief, right? To be free. Oh, Martin.

[49:37]

I just wanted to add my nightly plug for Christianity. The central core motif of that is the suffering God and not the blissful God. True. True. Yeah. I told you the thing that I... I told you about the story about the Christian Brutus. I missed that. What did he say? Not all theists believe in bliss. Not all theists believe in bliss. I told you about how I asked all the Catholics how do they stand it. Remember? Yeah. And they had a lot of things to say because for those of you who didn't hear the story, I was in Gethsemane Monastery and this is obvious to everybody but I never thought of it. The Catholics, the Protestants don't depict usually a figure of Jesus on the cross. You see the cross but you don't see anybody

[50:39]

on it. Catholic monasteries they have very graphic and lurid depictions very realistic and disturbing depictions of this good looking young fellow in the prime of life nailed up to this cross in agony. And you're eating lunch and there he is. I mean that's it. You go to the bathroom he's over there. You go to bed, he's there. And if it means anything to you I mean if you care about Jesus then this must be a horrible thing I would think. So I asked him. What do you think of that? And I got many interesting responses but certainly that's very true what you say. There's a tremendous emphasis on the suffering of Jesus. Let's see. I just wanted to say that when you started talking about

[51:41]

bliss and God if you do this the positive side it just felt like we were throwing old furniture into an empty room it was like clutter to me. All these concepts that I have to remember Concepts about God? Yeah, about God and what we need to do to get bliss Just the concept of bliss All these concepts of things that are attainable The experience I had was I don't want any of this. It felt like clutter to me. I like the other way I like the possibility I like experiencing the possibility of actually experiencing some of these hindrances leaving Yeah, and then it says life It's something you can sink your teeth into What's that? It's something you can sink your teeth into but you can't sink your teeth into bliss That's what I'm saying It's more immediate

[52:44]

for most people It really is It's almost a physical feeling I find Buddhism is very real It's very real, it's very concrete This is right now This is your life Like that old program on TV This is your life and that's it. Right now whatever it is, that's what it is and what are you going to do about it? Can you look at it? Can you become free within it? And there's no pie in the sky It's just right now I think that's true Have we exhausted this? No, we haven't I'm curious about this exercise Well Well, we may get that far this week, we'll see We've got several Check the five lines and double split hexagons Oh yeah But I don't know Maybe we've got to move on so we can see if we can get that far Okay, so that was

[53:47]

our discussion that it's like facing a dual mirror form and image behold each other you are not it, it actually is you Okay Then it says It is like a babe in the world in five aspects complete It does not go or come nor rise nor stand Okay It's like a babe in the world in five aspects complete Well, I'm sure that you're just wondering what are these five aspects? Well, you're in luck because there's a good footnote in Bill Powell's book that explains the five aspects and I shall now read you this footnote because that way I can stay out of trouble It says here The five characteristics of the common infant are explained as analogous to the

[54:47]

behavior of the Tathagata That is These are the five An infant is characterized by the inability to get up, stay put come, go away or talk Okay When you think about it, it's true Similarly the Tathagata does not raise the thought of any Dharma does not abide in any Dharma does not have any action that body that would be capable of action such as coming, does not go anywhere because he is already in Nirvana and although he has taught the Dharma for living beings he has in fact said nothing So an infant can't get up in other words arise abide, come or go and neither can a Buddha A Buddha cannot arise or pass away or remain

[55:48]

or come or go Like we always say in our dedications in funeral services and everything, there is no coming and going that's this no coming and no going That's four and the fifth one is talking and that's where the Baba Wawa comes in Next slide Yes So this is So suchness is like a baby that cannot get up cannot abide cannot come and cannot go Okay, so it's in that sense it's the way beyond phenomena, not it is nothing, other than you are not me You are not it

[56:50]

You are not it It actually is you You are not it, it actually is you So just like that It's not like phenomena which do seem to come and go and all that, actually in their aspect of Tathagata phenomena themselves don't come or go or arise or stand or anything like that Baba Wawa is the fifth one See a baby talks but doesn't talk A baby does all kinds of things but you can't say it's talked because none of it means that it can But here's what, listen to this I'll put it on here Also, according to this analogy the infant is described as producing sounds In Chinese it's Waho In Japanese it's Baba Wa is equal is equated with Tathagata's teaching of permanence and the unconditioned

[57:52]

and Ho with the teaching of impermanence and the conditioned So Ba and Baba and Wawa supposedly, according to this footnote refer to teaching of the conditioned and teaching of the unconditioned That's a footnote for you That's what my nieces say But no, it's a good point though Thus, speaking without speaking describes this latter characteristic of teaching without recourse to intelligible speech It also seems possible to interpret this to imply that what is generally accepted as intelligible speech and does in fact concern the conditioned and the unconditioned that is, the sutras, is no more than the incoherent sounds of an infant when compared to ultimate reality So, all I would say all speech especially the Buddhist teaching is Baba Wawa In other words, it's just the meaningless babbling of a baby So

[58:53]

this is how it is The jewel mirror or suchness or the Buddha is like a baby in all these ways Everything that the Buddha utters is just like the baby saying Baba Wawa It's speech that's non-speech All speech is non-speech Most of what we say everything that we say really does not signify We're just trying to contact one another through the medium of speech I mean, it's not that the baby doesn't say anything The baby does say plenty And the baby's talk actually has a great deal to do with the baby's life Babies are communicating with all this Baba Wawa stuff And it is effective It's just that it doesn't mean anything in the usual way And our speech is actually just the same Especially the teachings of the Buddha It's just a way of making contact with each other It's just a way of engaging with each other It doesn't mean anything What do you think of that? So it's not language if it doesn't mean anything

[59:56]

It's not really language. Language is not language Actually, when it says is there anything said or not What really it says is speech that is not speech Baba Wawa This is speech that is non-speech And there's many koans that turn on this point Speech that's not speech So this is a different way of thinking about language, right? I mean, I'm very used to this as a poet You know, you think about language like this That's how poets think about language Language is not language Not... Because poetry is trying to leap over the constrictions of language through the use of language So you view the language as not language Right. Yeah Here's a... Yocan has a poem that says... I've always wondered about that My poems are not poems Who understands that my poems are not poems that we can talk about Yeah, same point exactly Exactly what I'm just saying That's right And this is a very common

[60:59]

view of language in Buddhism Particularly in Zen Zen is almost specializing on this All of the Zen literature, the turning of it a lot of times is around this issue of being able to step back and see language as non-language understand it, not get caught Because what happens is language catches us up, right? Because we believe it as language as speech. We believe speech as speech And then right away, what happens? We get attached, like Kevin is saying The opposite of attached to language and concepts is to be free To be free is to see language as non-language concept as non-concept It's just words You don't have to So if somebody says something mean to you, you know and you take that seriously you get upset, you beat them up they beat you up, it goes on for generations And we see this, right, in our world But if you understand this is just speech that is non-speech then you take it in a totally different way

[62:01]

So ultimately it does not apprehend anything because its speech is not yet correct So this is just to say what I just said Ultimately speech will not apprehend it because speech is not sufficiently accurate to be able to apprehend it But if we understand the process of speech as the process of speech without taking it literally then we can be in contact with it You see how Bill translates In the end speaking without speaking In the end things are not gotten at because the words are still not correct Okay? So far? So good? In a way all these things are saying Every single line says the same thing You know, really

[63:04]

It's the same thing It's just that It's just a bunch of different images and different sort of ways of saying the same thing in the hopes that it begins to sink in Then it gets to this part It is like the six lines of a double split hexagram the relative and absolute integrate Piled up they make three the complete transformation makes five And my version of it is Remember I said I was doing it I can't give you my own My version of the last part is Thusness is like a baby with five aspects She doesn't get up or stay or come or go Baa [...] A speaking that's not speech You can never get at it because speech doesn't make any sense It's like the six lines of a double split hexagram Absolute and relative bound up together Fold them up, they become three

[64:08]

Change them completely They become five So I would recommend to you Shengyan's commentary This has to do with the doctrine in Soto Zen of the five ranks Five ranks? Yeah, the five ranks Which is a scholastic kind of philosophical teaching in Soto Zen that I don't like to talk about too much because it's very complicated and counterproductive But tonight I'm going to very quickly give you a basic idea Hopefully you can expect to in my flight paper Dogen didn't think much of it and later people after Dogen used it a lot and you see it here and there Hakuin used it in his discussion There's a set of koans which are based on the five ranks and so on but I've never researched

[65:09]

this before and I always wanted to look it up and so I spent some time looking at it The I Ching has hexagrams, right? Six lines It has to do with The I Ching in a certain way is actually all about this whole dialectic between the I Ching is yin and yang and yin and yang can be seen as relative and absolute or what is it? masculine and feminine or productive and receptive or something like that But all the hexagrams in the I Ching are made up of various combinations of those two things And so So you see, our problem here in understanding this poem is you can't really, it's not in the same conceptual framework as everything else we're used to thinking about because relative and absolute are not different things It's not like two things over here are going to bring them together Relative and absolute are just concepts to talk about

[66:10]

the world that we're living in and why it is that we're entangled in our world and we can't be free This is a way to help us to understand how to free ourselves So we set up these two different things so that the Buddhists felt like it was a good idea to, we could use the hexagrams of the I Ching to give a Buddhist gloss on the relationship between the relative and absolute And there actually was a Buddhist who clearly has translated what he called the Buddhist I Ching which is a Buddhist commentary on the I Ching using the hexagrams of the I Ching to talk about this kind of stuff So the double split hexagram the split hexagram has two two yin lines I think it is with a yin line in between, a split line in between And that's the hexagram for fire, that's the trigram for fire And fire on top of fire is the double split hexagram

[67:11]

You can see it there, it's three, six two hexagrams one on top of the other, both identical with two strong lines and a weak one in the middle That's called the Buddhist This is called, yeah, the Buddhist I Ching by Chi Hsu, who was a Buddhist pundit later You know, later on in the, after Zen had been around for a while in China it began to, just in a certain way a very similar process that's happening here where you get the Buddhists talking to the Christians and Jews, and pretty soon Buddhists are going to start talking, and they already are in terms of using Christian and Buddhist terminology and Jewish terminology just as you see Jews and Buddhists and Christians using Buddhist terminology to talk about their religion Well that's exactly what happened in China to the extent that there were Taoist commentaries on Buddhist literature and Buddhist commentaries on Taoist literature and so this is a Buddhist commentary

[68:12]

on the I Ching Anyway fire has no this is hexagram 30 fire, fire has no nature of its own it only appears cleaving to fuel See, so it's just like all this stuff about He is not it I am not you, I am not it It actually is you Same thing, fire and fuel are non-different and yet they're not quite the same Anyway, I won't there's all this stuff in here, I won't read you that but how they make this whole stuff about, piled up they make three, the complete transformation makes five Well if you take two there's two lines, the yin and the yang so that's pairs pile up the pairs and piled up they make three three pairs of two six lines

[69:14]

right so here's the double split hexagram if you pile up they make they make three right if you if you do it this way these two, right and these two got that and these two and these two, and these two you get six out of them, I mean five out of them Whoa, wait, what? See that? Here's two, right these two here's two I know I'm using the same one twice, but that's the idea these two so that's five different pairs right but if you just pile them up on top of each other, there's three if you don't use the same one twice but if you do it that way, there's five and so the reason why they want to get five

[70:16]

is because they want to get to this formulation here these are the five ranks this is the diagram of the five ranks, and these five ranks are supposed to be of course there's an infinite dialectic between relative and absolute there is no, it's not limited to five or something like that, but to talk about it, they made five different positions five different relationships between relative and absolute ok so in this formulation the split line which is the yin, or the receptive is the relative and the yang which is the strong line is the absolute so you have these five relationships between relative and absolute in this hexagon and they diagram them like this the first one and then, Shengyan has a really good

[71:18]

this is the most lucid explanation that I ever read, because usually it's ponderous, but this is pretty good I'm repeating more or less what he says and you can read it for yourself he says, he talks about them as stages in the practice first position is when there's delusion but now within delusion there is some awakening so now you have actually had this experience the insight the inspiration to know that there is liberation, you've tasted it so that's a big deal and yet you're still a wreck the delusion in your life is still dominant see but you've touched the dharma so you now see that something can be done you can see it, you know it so you have some experience of it whether it's a moment of awakening or just a real

[72:20]

faith or some conviction that you know this is really right this is real the practice is real, it opens you up you know that that's the first position in other words the deluded within the true or something like that second position is time goes by and now it's reversed your confusions are less apparent your delusions are less apparent you're not so messed up so obviously messed up as you were before more and more awakening saturates your life and less do you mess up and get confused get off track so this is enlightenment within delusion it doesn't matter what the names are you get the point this one is called

[73:21]

coming from within the real in this one now there's no manifestation of delusion at all but it's there in the center in other words your behavior might be very beautiful and no manifestation of delusion but you look within and you see it right in the center of your being even though to a great extent gross defilements are cleared up and all the problems that were constantly happening to you here and less so there where you get messed up and get crossed with people and this would happen, that would happen it doesn't happen anymore you have a smooth movement in your life but you see the delusion is still there in the center of everything and then here there's total dropping of delusion there's complete awakening which is not even anything

[74:21]

it's not even you know Shing Yen said there shouldn't even be a drawing nothing to that but it's seeing through the delusion clarifying all the delusion and then the next stage is total delusion in other words returning to the world, it's like the Oxford pictures you know where at the end you return to the world an ordinary person so of course in a certain way these are not really stages they're simultaneous and so on and so forth but it's just a way of talking about in real life in real practice the inner see one way of looking at it that's nice and clear and easy to talk about is Shing Yen's idea of this being a progression along the path it's more complicated to look at it as a philosophical construct of enlightenment I mean of absolute relative

[75:24]

and that these are within all phenomena at all times, it's more difficult to speak of it but that's anyway one way of understanding it and looking at it, and these are the diagrams that are traditionally used so the main point I would like you to take away from all this is that relative and absolute coming from the relative in other words, the everyday past the salt these tomatoes are rotten and coming from the absolute there are no tomatoes there's nothing to eat anyway the meal is already done there is no impurity anywhere in the world at any moment we're called on to respond from one position or another and we have to know right now, what's the appropriate response a lot of the Zen dialogues

[76:26]

are the guy comes from the absolute and they hit him over the head that's stupid, drop that other time a person comes from the relative drop that another time somebody comes from the relative which is really the absolute and in a lot of the dialogues you see this like in Shosan ceremony that's the fun of doing a Shosan ceremony someone asks a question how do you respond, do you respond from the absolute do you respond from the relative do you respond from the relative actually bringing up the absolute do you respond from the absolute, bringing up the relative do you throw away the absolute all that, and it's not something you think about I'm not going to think about I'm going to come from this or I'm going to come from that there isn't any such thing as relative but this is a way of looking at these kinds of questions and responses is the idea with the last page

[77:27]

there that the absence of delusion is an all encompassing delusion yeah, there's just ordinary life in other words, at the end enlightenment just comes down to ordinary life same thing as before, in the beginning same as the beginning another way of talking about the same thing as the old saying, in the beginning mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers then mountains are not mountains rivers are not rivers we return to the ordinary stuff the everyday but with a whole new spirit really everything do you begin the cycle again do you think, or is it kind of a dwelling place from which you can set aside your trials well I guess fundamentally this is the shape of every moment all these stages in every moment we come to the place where we say I'm in the fifth circle now wow, I've got that no, I think that we're always this is always repeating the shape of every moment

[78:30]

we did it we did the hexagonals I'm so happy very nice chart nice chart yes do the commentators think of this as a circular motion and yet an upward spiral a looping spiral or just a continuous circular motion well I don't know I'm not that familiar with the commentary or the literature but I think, I've often spoken of it myself as a spiral coming back so that's in a sense coming back to this black circle is coming back to the same place again but not the same place in that sense it's a spiral a spiral comes back to itself yes, a spiral in other words it goes to the same place but not really the same place so it's going in circles but it's not coming to the same place and I remember one time I gave a talk

[79:34]

about the spiral in a circle and the circle is the wheel of birth and death which is circular in the sense of repetitive over and over again coming back to the same mistakes that we make endlessly so it's it's nothing no one needs me it's that the dark that's the black circle yeah and and I will never stop looking after it especially to never stop looking after my heart in the black circle I think so ok well maybe it's just about time to stop here and we'll chat and then we'll take up for next time two lines right after this and remember gosh is there somebody who wasn't here and needs to be called I'll look that up later

[80:34]

but anyway not next Tuesday, next Thursday ok so thank you very much and I'm sorry that I made you all think that we got through ok let's chant a song a song of the jewel mirror of Samadhi ee ee that teaching your question as it is to be communicated by Buddha's ancestors now you have it so keep it you are all the world's sorrow hiding their in your life when you are ready and they are the same and you know where they are meaning it's not in the words it is part of the heart if you're excited you can pronounce it pho-to-niss-i-t [...]

[81:35]

pho-to-niss-i-t It is to be found in the darkness of the night that's the paradigm Acts as a guide for me to teach and go find Although it's not complicated, it's not about speech It's like facing a little mirror for a minute To hold each other in your heart, it actually is truth Like the faith in the world, by that it's complete Does not overcome the horizon, stand far above our voice There is each other, but ultimately it does not have to be anything Because it's each of us, never connected, it's like the six lines Of a double-slit hexagram with the wrongs in it, absolutely great Piled up in H3, a complete transformation in H5 It is like the taste of a fire-flavoured herb Like the diamond-thumbing wall, suddenly you agree with the thing that's true Required in response, come up together

[82:36]

Communicating with the source and communicating with the process It includes integration, it includes neuro-conversion It's auspicious, do not violate it It's naturally real, yet inconceivable It's not within the problems of tradition or enlightenment It's the causal conditions, time to see this quiet expedition Time to act, it's blindness, it fits into space It's missing, it's greatness, it's utterly complication And a good express deviation will fail to accord with the proper attunement Now in our sudden new gradual interconnection With which our set of basic approaches Our basic approaches are extinguished And there are guiding rules To be in the middle of dances is reached And the approach comprehended Should return to be still For those outwardly still While inwardly we're living like a tentative goal To try to find the ancient saints To study them and to serve upon them The teaching of ordinary religions They are all black as white When erroneous imagination

[83:38]

Seeks the acquiescent mind Realizes itself You will want to conform to the ancient way Please observe the ancients of former times And learn not to put out the way Or put out one gaze at a tree Pretending on such a tiger Eating part of its prey Of course, what might that time be? Because there is a gaze There are two vessels Mind-blowing Because there is a star And the difference There are not And how he With his arches Skill Can target it And the taste is Equivalent or Appoint to be And what has this to do With the power Or skill And when man Begins to sing The stone woman Gets up to dance It's not within reach Of feeling Or discrimination I have been admitted Consideration Involvement In its research For its son Some days A father Out of pain Is not fairly old Not serving Is no help Practice secretly Working within Is no fool Like an idiot Who can achieve Continuity

[84:39]

Is called The host Within the host Ye Dedicate the merit Of our study And chanting Of the jewel mirror Samadhi To the complete Awakening Of us And all Being Ye Ye Ye

[84:56]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ