And I wanted to just, first of all, apologize a little bit for the last class, the lecture, the discussion, the issue. It's not quite what I wanted. Lecture more. Lecture less. There's a lot of material to cover in a relatively short time. Especially last week. This week is a little different. Just because all the precepts of right speech They're really different facets of it.

[01:06]

And I'd like to talk about it. But just to remind you, the last thing we spoke about, basically, these types of action. not to take what is not given, not to understand sexuality, and not to sell the world of delusion. I guess before we start, is there anything anybody wants to bring up, say, ask? But I just wanted to say something that happened that was really

[02:18]

Wonderful, and that was that we did this mountains and rivers session at Point Reyes, and we were on the beach. On the night of the full moon, we did the full moon circle on the beach, facing the waters with the waves crashing on it. And it was really wonderful. It's like, you know, the boughs washing over us at this moment. And just about in the middle of it, It was getting dark, and somebody was strolling along the beach, and they saw this happening. And they kind of made a blur all of a sudden. Strange beach cult. But for the rest of it, it was a little bit funny. But we thought that, too. Well, anything else you need? It was a good comment, but I found the material really helpful, the way you tied things together.

[03:34]

I didn't see the connection. They really are just one piece. So everything else is a loss. But then there are specifics in terms of specific sets thoughts, words, and actions, that it just helps us focus in on the areas we're illustrating. So let's continue.

[04:39]

The precepts of speech. So those precepts, and what we saw from that was about truth and false speech. I vow not to slander. I vow not to praise self at these kinds of levels. I thought I'd start by reading you. I thought I'd start more by reading this Talmudic commentaries on speech, on words. And this is just a powerful way to begin this book of the words that hurt and the words that heal. How to choose words wisely in terms of evolution.

[05:45]

And the first chapter is, we don't recognize the power of words. In a small Eastern European town, A man went through the community slandering the rabbi. One day, feeling suddenly remorseful, he begged the rabbi for forgiveness and offered to undergo any penance he may commence. The rabbi told him to take a feather pillow from his home, cut it open, scatter the feathers to the wind, and then return to sea. Man did as he was told and then came to the rabbi and asked, am I now forgiven? Almost. You just have to do one more thing. Go and gather all the feathers. But that's impossible for the actual case. The wind has already scattered precisely.

[06:46]

And although you truly wish to correct evil, done, it is impossible to repair the damage done by your words. It is as impossible to repair the damage done by your words as it is to recover the things. And that's another culture that's pointing at the danger and what we have to do, why we're cautioned to watch our speech. So my colleague, Nikos, But right speech is also the third step on the April path. And one of the disciples asked the Buddha, what is right speech? And the Buddha says, right speech is abstaining from lying, divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter.

[08:00]

This is called right speech. You know, the Buddhist understanding and the Jewish understanding are very close. And I think, actually, it's a fundamental understanding of most spiritual conditions. Because a human experience has the same consequences. But it's really important to remember that word, because they're like, The metaphors are often metaphors from warfare violence. But words are like an arrow or a bullet. Once they've been released, they cannot be recalled.

[09:08]

When they find their target, they move. You can heal that wound, but you can't undo the wound. That's it. It has to be then chronically dealt with from all parties. So that's why of the 10 precepts, three of them directly pertain to speech. So Dogen's version is, I vow to refrain from false speech. The Dharma wheel turns from the beginning. There is neither surplus nor lack. The sweet dew saturates all and harvests the truth. Bodhidharma's version of that first precept is, self-nature is subtle and mysterious.

[10:18]

In the realm of the inexplicable dharma, not speaking a single word is called the precept of non-mind. And then the next one I found on the synangelic. I don't remember the use for it. In the Buddha Dharma, go together, appreciate, realize, and actualize together. Do not permit haphazard thought. Do not corrupt the way. Bodhidharma's version is, in the realm of the flawless Dharma, not expounding upon error, is called precept, not speaking of the faults of others. And then, the last one, vowed not to put himself at the expense of others. Govinda says, maybe it's a little different position, every Buddha and every ancestor realizes that he is the same as the limitless sky and as great as the universe.

[11:26]

When they realize their true body, there is nothing within or without. When they realize their true body, they are nowhere on the earth. in the realm of the equitable dharma, not dwelling on I against you, is called the precept of not praising yourself while using it. So those are, you know, understanding that dharma, or the dharma from the Vedas, So we're studying, and Nell was in this lecture, and he said, we're on the precepts, and what we're speaking of, what can't be spoken of. And it's particularly to the point when we're speaking about the precepts pertaining to speech, where Forty Jones said,

[12:33]

not speaking a single word. It's called the precept of non-speaking falsely. So we were really wise when we stopped what we were doing. But we need to keep on, because this is the realm that we live in. We have to be able to do this. Remember Cosan's words from the Song of the Children of Samadhi. And he says, the meaning is not in the words, but in response to the inquiring impulse. So if we use words as a tool for uncovering, it's just a tool for entering the truths of our lives and about ourselves in a relationship. But when I was in Japan with Paul Disco, he didn't talk to me.

[13:49]

When I worked at a factory recently with Paul Disco, he had spent a lot of time in Japan. And he was very concerned with this. And he saw me as a little kid. Hillside, and a tiny town. It's just down the hill where there's a little market and a couple of shops. And then there's a bigger town about three miles away. But in the crossroads down the bottom of the hill, there would be these old Japanese ladies. endocrinosis and vascular cirrhosis. But they would meet each other every morning and you could see them just bowing to each other and sort of chattering away and asking about the weather and inquiring about their families.

[14:59]

What we would say in small talk, when Paul told us, he said, You don't need to know anything about what they're saying. What they're saying is actually really important. Just watch their bodies. Because the words and the gestures are merely a vehicle for expressing connection and intimacy. The substance of it is not so important. You sense that's not speaking the same language. It was really wonderful. Once you got that, you could really appreciate the way they met each other. It felt like, even without, instead of being outside, because you didn't have the same language or word, but they were the same, you could feel more connected to them, because they were the same person.

[16:06]

So the meaning responds to the required impulse. And it's not in the words, but we use the words as a tool. And we need all the help we can get. So go back a second to this Talmudic tradition. There's this rabbi in the 19th century who I've admired, Kagan, or he's known as the prophet's hymn, which actually is named for this book that he wrote, which is a collection of all of the scriptural teachings, various sources on speech, on basically two broad categories of speech. One is called Lashon Hara, which is forbidden speech, gossip, even gossip about things that are actually true, and also just defamatory speech.

[17:22]

And then the other category, which I can't quite pronounce, it's R, possibly C-H-I-L-U-S, R, possibly C-H-I-L-U-S, which is a whole other category of speech, which is reporting to others what someone may have said about that person. And we can see there's a real congruence between our precepts and these Talmudic approaches. And what I like about them, and this solution in the book is based on a book I was writing. And there was another book that I ran on, which is actually hard to get, which is called Guard Your Tongue, which is another Talmudic section of the Talmud.

[18:33]

It's like they parse every particular kind of verbal interaction that you might have. And I can't keep them all straight. But after a while, you begin to get the picture about how to speak respectfully. Well, really, it's about how not to speak disrespectfully. So it's mostly the first pure precept. you know, to avoid people. And a lot of Jewish law is like that. It's the prohibitory side, and then in the commentary, they explain how that's, you know, it's kind of, just as in Buddhism, it's kind of an alchemical thing where, you know, embodied in this negative, And this prohibition is also the encouragement, the side that is harmonizing.

[19:42]

So in this introduction to the Fakas Kayin, again, there's some metaphors. Death and life is in power. And a person's tongue is more powerful than his sword. A sword can only kill somebody who is nearby. The tongue can cause a dead person who is far away. So Thich Nhat Hanh's version of this precept is the deep listening and loving speech. Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful speech and the inability to listen to others, That's the ability to listen to others. I vow to cultivate loving speech and deep listening in order to bring joy and happiness to others, and to relieve others of their suffering. Knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I vow to learn to speak truthfully with words that inspire self-confidence, joy, and hope, and to determine not to spread news that I do not know to be certain,

[20:59]

I am not to criticize things of which I am not sure. I will refrain from uttering words that can cause division or discord, or that can cause the family or the community to break. I'll make all efforts to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small. That's actually the mindset. So on these, remember the three levels that we were talking about, the literal, the compassionate, and the absolute, these three precepts seem a bit more straightforward than some of the others. It's literally, don't lie, don't discuss them in lots of letters, and don't verbally set yourself above others. This is a place where personal use of language is not common. Compassionately. Compassion for positive science is to communicate the truth, see each being as perfect, and maintain modesty, praising the virtues of others.

[22:11]

In the practice of Buddhism, we see each being as oneself. Seeing each being as oneself, we dwell in silence and compassion. And this is expressed by, in our zazen, And it's also expressed in meetings, where we choose to sit and listen, rather than to score a verbal point or to correct something, which is a tough one to me over the years. I had to learn it. I had to bear. The criticism of others, particularly of Mel, for many years, I'm still looking at it. I'm just so full of my feelings.

[23:15]

And to learn, when you have one, you don't actually have to say it. It's not required. I'm not going to die from it. I'm not going to die from it. But it feels like, sometimes it feels like you have to say this. And sometimes it just, you can sit there and say it. It leaks out. It's incredible how powerful and sneaky that is. it will get out. And I'm not talking about even, sometimes it'll get out in a look or a roll. After the meeting. Roll in your eyes or whatever, which is another kind of speech. But sometimes, that urge is so strong, if there's just the slightest gap in your attention, then you say the thing you wish you hadn't said.

[24:22]

How can you do that? It's really, it's amazingly bold. You know, so is the wish to fix something. To fix something that's actually unfixable, which is someone's pain. Often, you can't face it, and you can't listen to it. So I really like the emphasis that I'm going to take that on. It puts on the listening part, which is dimensionless. It's not brought forward. Don't ignore it. But I think it makes it more practical. So I would say, yesterday, I was in this gathering at a cafe owned by a Palestinian.

[25:38]

It was a gathering of 15 people, half Jewish and half Palestinian. And we all briefly told our stories. All the stories. But the stories of some of these Palestinians is just, you know, one's imagining it. And they were reluctant. They're the ones that, and they said that. And they acknowledged, they were reluctant. They were the ones who got to come here. But you could see in some, you know, one man was just, the suffering was so great, and you could see how easily and understandably we turn to the angel. And really, there was nothing to do but to acknowledge that the earth is in his hand, which he was willing to do.

[26:45]

But you can't. The earth is in his hand. take back the time that he was thrown in jail. You can't give his family back their land. You can't fix that. So, one listens to the words that he uses. Our expressive understanding can mirror what we do. So without, uh... Who was that? You said something like, uh... Where is he? Uh, people? But it's self-explanatory, isn't it?

[27:47]

No, no. In which? Um... What you were reading there, I saw you. You were reading through that, which I wondered what it was that you were reading. But it was, um, it's your notes, which are really, really great. Sorry. There's no fault finding, but it said something about encouraging people. Like encouraging them. Right. Well, this is what. Which sounded different than what we usually, which I can't remember what it's called. Well, I think it's part of it's in Kit Mahon, and it's also in my understanding. Right. Well, what he says is, knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I vow to learn to speak truthfully with words that inspire self-confidence, joy, and hope. And then, oh, here, I think what I was saying was in the realm of the compassionate mode of the precept is

[29:00]

The siege being imperfect, maintain modesty and praise the virtues of others. I mean, I know what the difference is, but I'm just going to ask, what's the difference between that and flattery? Between praising the virtues of others and flattery? Does anyone want to answer that? I don't know if I mentioned this. My first encounter being with a single parent, I had to ask for myself that I had understood, to understand the undoableness of harsh speech when I was with my children by myself. They didn't have their mother to deal with. So if I ever looked down, frustration.

[30:05]

And one of the ways that I developed was to find ways to encourage them to see things in a positive way about themselves. So that because it would be too easy to say, oh, you didn't get an A on your paper, but rather, wasn't it great that you learned You know, whatever it was that you learned from doing that. That wasn't flattery, but it was a way of turning the occasion away from criticism to supporting their effort. Does that address it? Yeah, I mean, I kind of know if I just... It's quite simply flattery. If I flatter you, it's about me. It's wanting something better.

[31:10]

He's usually wanting something back. Bodhisattva's four methods of guidance. The first method of guidance is giving. And it's very interesting. He says, giving means not coveting. not coveting means not currying favor, which is pretty, when you think about it, it's like, wow, how did he get there from giving? But I think it's because what he's trying to get at is giving, is just giving without any underlying motivation of wanting something for you, really wanting something for yourself, just instead of just giving. So I think that's, to me, that's what flattery is. You know, another piece of this, I was talking to somebody today, and she said, oh, people are always saying, oh, you do such a good job at this or that.

[32:10]

They're always saying, you do, you know. And it's hard for her because she doesn't know what to say. She said she was talking to a surgeon about it. And he said, well, you don't need to do that. And so maybe she'll just say, thank you very much. You know, it makes other people, it's like their way of giving verbally, perhaps, themselves, and just to say thank you very much. Because a lot of people have a hard time with not praise, necessarily, what we're talking about now, talking about a different thing, but praise. Thank yous. That's when I had a lot of trouble with the course of my life. It's like I couldn't, for psychological reasons, I couldn't let it in. If somebody praised me for something, usually what that would make me think was, well, they don't really know, because I'm really not good at that.

[33:15]

And I would get so self-involved. And I'd even get pissed off, because it would remind me of my perception of inadequacy. I'm putting my nervosities on the table here. And I would neglect to say, thank you. Really, their motivation, there was nothing wrong with their motivation. They were generous. And so it's good to just make a practice of these modes of speech, of these precepts of speech, even when we haven't completely embodied them yet, you know, but if we make them a practice, if you practice them, that begins to work on you and then it does become genuine. generous, and crazy, and cliched.

[34:30]

And it's, [...] it So I see that there's a kind of distinction between these three cells. You know they're quite connected. But what links them on all of these respective levels is relationship.

[35:47]

What kinds of relationship does truth or falsehood create between us? And then the same question comes up when we talk about fault-finding, pride, or judging, or speaking of others. It's always in terms of relationship. And then it's also, we have to reflect on how we feel when we are spoken to. in certain ways can really reflect on that grief. And that's our model. If you think about how you respond to being spoken to in a certain way, then you hope that it will affect how you speak to others.

[36:51]

No one affected me. So in the realm of speech, it's also can we speak to ourselves is with compassion, and to speak to each other with compassion, because we have a choice about it. We tell the truth or we lie, we speak good or we speak bad, either way what we're doing is generating relationships. But what kind of relationship do you want? What kind of relationship do you want between yourself and someone else? So that's what I see, and it links these. And a lot of Zen, particularly Soko Zen, is about relationship.

[38:01]

I think we all do this at least. what the ultimate religion is. But we emphasize the kind of forms we do, as a kind of laboratory for the relationship. How we carry those forms, how we speak to each other, is a fierce It's a very clear manifestation of, are we awake or are we asleep? And there is a distinction between these precepts. The precept of not lying has a very wide scope. in the Brahmadeva Sutra, which is the sutra in which the precepts are laid out.

[39:09]

It says, a bodhisattva should always maintain proper speech and proper views, and warns against creating so-called deviant views and deviant speech. So in this sense, lying or false speech implies the promotion of anything that is delusional, delusional or false in the realm of thoughts, words, and actions. And Nendogen, who is speaking from this place, reminds us that the dharma wheel turns from the beginning. There is neither surplus nor lack. The sweet juice saturates all, and harvests the fruit. So whether we laugh or cry, or walk or run, whether our plan is built through creation or order, or satisfaction or despair, the Dharma wheel is just turning.

[40:26]

And if we understand that, then we can live in the kind of sweetness of this truth. And when we live this way, then our words are kind of like poetry. They're very condensed, and they're precious. which would be very nice. But if you live in delusion, you misunderstand the words. You don't use them skillfully. You make mistakes.

[41:27]

And we have to accept that. When the Dharma does not fill your whole body and mind, you think that it's already sufficient, you think you have enough. When Dharma fills your body and mind, you understand that something is missing. So you understand that you need to keep working on this, and that that actually is the sweetness of our life. of our human life as being incomplete and unfinished sort of a work in progress. And so language, in a way, both to inquire and also to express. I thought this also meant, like, it all comes out in a rush. Anyway, like, the truth is harvested no matter what.

[42:31]

Right. But it may not be... I don't think that he's talking about the conventional truth. No. No, I know. But that's what I... That's what I think. Yes. It doesn't matter what we say. I mean, it does matter, but ultimately there is simply truth. So, what we're saying... It's like... The truth is revealed in your head, ultimately. You know, you can say all this stuff, and you can say this and that and everything, but it seems like, ultimately, the truth appears. And that's for sure.

[43:37]

I think the truth is just there. It's not. And this is why, going back to Doge, it's more than I used to. So Doge's pressing question, when he was networking with this particular monk, was that his whole doctrine of religion and life If all things are light, are already light, then why do we need to practice? And this is a really burning question. this is this intention here i think you know yes it all it's all there the truth is is there and yet it also it's like our job to realize it ourselves that we have to do some work that we have to do and not just rest on you know this kind of

[44:58]

It's an intellectual understanding that it's all true, that the absolute reality exists. And is it possible to practice? Like, if you practice, or when you practice? When you practice, then the truth is likely to come out. There's no timetable, unfortunately. But it doesn't always. Or where does that truth exist? Is this your truth? Is it my truth? And I may think I know something about your reality. You may think you know something about my reality. And are these different or the same? Are we getting too abstract here?

[46:05]

Start. Which? Yeah. So we're sort of, well, I'm not sure this is what we're talking about. I'm saying in the absolute level, there is nothing that is not true. If there are no beings, then how could one place oneself above another? But on the other levels, we have to deal with truth and falsity. Yeah, I was just wondering if you could tie this back to the structure of the human being. So we're talking about truth as a sort of an idea.

[47:12]

So he has the best words. And so that is discussion. about the truth rather than starting all over again. And my question is, has this discussion that you're really engaging in, is that addressing that third level of structure, which is absolutely wrong? Well, I think we were in agreement about that. The dharma wheel turns from the beginning. There's neither surplus nor lack. That's the statement of the Absolute. And yet, we have to keep talking about it, investigating something again.

[48:18]

It comes back to a relationship with something that we want to know. Checking it out again, because, you know, if I just go with If I go with my view, I mean, that's to get back to the ramanic sutra, which warns against creating so-called deviant views and deviant karma. So if I just go with my view, I could be delusional. So we check these views out with each other. And also, we check out their effect. We check out the effect of our words. That's the key. It has also a way to have a view that can be kind of problematic.

[49:19]

We basically allow the viewer to have a take on the work they're assuming they're asking for. And the thing is, all of us, either we know or we've done something where what we may say something that we really feel to be true. And the effect of it is divisive. So this is wonderful to come back to relationship.

[50:22]

A really nice thing in Ignorance of the Mind over brings us truth like sex. It needs a safe environment. If I speak from my heart, I want to do that in a situation where I feel you're likely to be listening. So now we're veering away, let's come back. See how easy it is? And how easy it is to misunderstand, and when you misunderstand you bring, each of us here, was bringing a whole other realm of thought.

[51:31]

And karma. And our views, too. Thank you. A pertinent question. What? A pertinent question. Right, right. But we do need to feel that it's a situation in which someone is listening. And this is where there are these five conditions that I often think about and try to use, actually, which are also from the Bhakti-moksa, the Buddha's rules. So what are the five traditions that must be investigated and established in oneself before admonishing another? I'm sort of mushing these three precepts together.

[52:33]

But before admonishing another, do I speak at the right time or not? Do I speak of the facts or not? Do I speak gently or harshly? Do I speak profitable words or useful words? And do I speak with a kindly heart or inwardly malicious? That's the words of the book I put. So in short, what I think, before I say something special, if I'm reactive, and if I do think about this, is it true? Is it useful? And is it pliable?

[53:33]

It has to meet those criteria. Sometimes you need a strong language. And sometimes that small language is what's helpful. But it has to meet those criteria in order to be effective. Otherwise, it's really breaking these precepts. So is it true? It's the best of my knowledge, what I've got to say. Is it useful to the situation, to the relationship, to the other person? And is it timely? Are they in a circumstance in which they can hear it? So sometimes when things get heated, it's best to just go in and apologize and go away, and come back and act

[54:40]

So I think that's a really good point, that the truth needs a safe environment. And it's also true that if I'm not open to you, I may not tell you the truth, or the whole truth. I'll also get back to detecting myself. And chances are, you'll know this. You'll get it. Usually you may not know it on a quite conscious level. You'll know it to the degree your body and your guard will be on it. And that's how Warsaw, our violence system, So sometimes this truth is not the whole truth.

[55:51]

In that case, it's kind of a lot. My understanding of the first part is that the first part of the Right, it's about delusion. It's about self-delusion. The second part, which is really wonderful, it's that when you... When you borrow a filter body in mind, you realize that something is missing.

[57:09]

What's missing is permanence. We think something is sufficient. We think, oh, we've got it. We kind of nail it in place. But to realize there's something missing means that we realize that things are changing, and that life and reality is getting scattered. And that we always need to be practicing. It's like at the end of, is it Hansa Senki? He's good at the end. This is where he says, in the poem about Master Dening himself. He says, you understand that the nature of wind is permanent, but you don't understand the nature of fanning.

[58:17]

And that's the same thing, the nature of wind. Yeah, there is nothing missing. The universe is complete. And yet, when we realize that, then what's What we constantly have to be adding to it is ourselves, our practice. What we're adding to it is that we are turning the door on you. That's our job. Is that helpful? But what's really encouraging about that quotation is that our whole lives are conditioned by a sense that something is missing and wanting to fill it up.

[59:28]

There are various psychological systems, the entire advertising industry The entire entertainment industry, as an industry, is all premised on the fact that there's this hole in our lives. And we feel that very painfully, and we want to fill it up with stuff, whether it's philosophical, sexual experiences, or material goods, or whatever. And what Doge is saying, I think, is, wow, great. It's incomplete. It's my job to keep working at it. And it's OK that way. That life is OK that way. And it's also, These people don't die.

[60:43]

And that's OK, too. It's not separate. So that's the way I see it. Which? No, no, no. Then it's a gajapon. Except the one of those majors. Yeah. No, I think it's the end of gajapon. It's the end of gajapon. No, the end of, according to Zevi, is the the cheese of the Long River, right? I think that's how it gets them. It can be cheese or green.

[61:44]

OK, so go on a little. What kind of cheese? Well, I don't know. They never had cheese in Japan. It's a problem in translation. So the sixth Bodhisattva precept, this is a really good one, is avoid slander or not discussing the faults of others. And the seventh, not praising self at the expense of others. Those are clearly extensions of each other. And these are maybe the hardest precepts to keep, at least in my experience. I remember a story that there was The Apostle Peter Joseph Goldstein told a wonderful tradition in the Book of Testament. And he said, for a while, he decided for six months, his vow was never to speak of somebody who wasn't actually in the room.

[62:56]

Again, if that's what we're going to do, if that's what we're trying to do here, this whole exchange would be reduced to about 20 words. It's really hard. And it has eliminated about 90% of this conversation. Just think about how often we refer to somebody including, I just did it about Joseph, right? So keeping those precepts of not praising self to the extent of others and not criticizing others. And it comes at us from every fault finding.

[64:03]

It comes at us from every angle. And it's a real, again, it's one of those edges of Zantac, this too. As, doubtless, each of us is what we know. Can I answer this? Yeah. Rather than just for the pure attention to criticize others as slowly as possible, do you have any specific suggestions about some kind practice, or behavioral tactic, or strategy that you use to get your awareness, or something like that. I'd love to. That's great. Well, I would like to concretize it in some specific way that we can get beyond abstract generalizations. I guess what I try to do is I try to think before I speak.

[65:04]

And I've been sort of training myself to do that. So there's a little pause. And actually, if I'm in practice mode, I'm sort of composing what I say, and very rapidly, And their minds were rapidly computing, is there self-interest in this? Is there not? What's my stance? What's this person? They're being just kind of even and perceptive. They're being judgmental. I don't know that there's any sure answer. I mean, I think what Joseph was doing was like radical surgery, right? If that avoids it, if what you say is going to avoid talking with anybody who isn't there, then that's a very radical approach to it.

[66:12]

It's not practical. And you can't do it for very long, even if you make that good practice. But if somebody has a better idea. I'd just like to say, I think it's the hardest thing, because our whole culture is based upon non-separation. You know, you talk to newspapers, you know, you're in this place, you know, it's like you're being reinforced, you're taking place, you know, you don't have a limit, therefore, to not do it is a heroic act, you know. You have to, I mean, what, what, any, any guidance is wrong, you know. Duct tape, you know. It's, sometimes it's easier if you're wearing rugs, so. Yeah, maybe so. Right, okay. Square it all the time. That was just a reinforcing notion, yeah. Yeah, that's right. Now, I went through a discussion at work in September or January. I'm just as very, very upset with myself for not getting it right the way it was.

[67:20]

And I really tried to ask myself, and I try to do this as much as possible, is why would I say anything in this situation? What's my motivation? How do you respond to what I'm saying? Because usually it's kind of a response to something, a reaction to something. But a lot of times I find myself just simply not saying anything. And that's the best avenue for it. It's the really kind of question my motivation to say anything. When I say something, I don't know what it's for. Ground the point. And I swear that if 70% of the time I say something, it's for no real reason. And I would do just as well in terms of my own sensible being and everybody else's to keep my mouth shut. I think it's important, though, as you were saying that, I also realize that there are

[68:29]

there are also sectors of society that are silenced. And it's important to remember that. So it's not just like this straight, across-the-board thing. There's a kind of silencing that goes one way, so right gender, right class. And so as we're looking, you know, whole circle have to do with that. So that I'm not presuming, say, that everybody in this room comes from the same place. The fact that there's some people here who speak more than others, and there's some people here who may say very little in the course of this class.

[69:35]

And I'm not saying that's because they're silenced. And sometimes we hope that probably people who are not so shy are probably safe with that. Because I know she's always thinking. But it's also there are. there are sectors of society, and I just want to acknowledge them, who are silenced, for whom one rule does not apply. PJ. Well, I was just thinking back to this gentleman. K. Who said gentleman? PJ. You did. K. Who was listening? I was only listening. No, I said... I think as I noticed last time, I didn't think anyone spoke. It was women in the room cheering. I would have been speaking.

[70:38]

Yes. I wasn't counting deliberately, but then, yeah. Oh, you said a few things. Something else I think of, too, is when I hear somebody being critical or talking about somebody else. I don't have to listen to it. I don't have to go and tell me some more. You know, you can say, I don't want to talk about it. That's in this Tom Woodard stuff. I read that book too. You read that book too. It's very clear, you know, that, you know, if you even appear to be giving your attention If you stay a party to a certain kind of conversation, in a way you're complicit in it. You're encouraging the other person, and you're subjecting yourself to hearing what's not going to be helpful to you.

[71:39]

Because then you're going to have to carry it. And so, you're encouraged to Not just to abstain yourself from those conversations, or abstain yourself from situations where those kinds of conversations are going to arise, but also stop them. And that's really hard. And when we're writing, it comes in a handful. And we go across the country. And those were good people, you know. They were friends, but not really close friends. And I guess, you know, I'd sort of grown up in this shelter of somewhat progressive milieu where certain kinds of jokes were not told. And it was just this kind of steady stream of white guy jokes.

[72:46]

And I won't go into that. But then I didn't know what to do. I didn't know how to say that I didn't want to be a party to their work. I said, you know, I'm not comfortable with this. I didn't have the courage to do that, that particular thing. But that's what it's, what Kafka's kind of suggesting we do, and I think that that's actually the implication for that. of these precepts, too. Especially, some of them are spelled out in even more detail in the higher ones. Thank you. I have a question. My experience is, I think, with the John's, and trying to march away, and it's very often used when I'm dropping around. So it's a real question. That's a part of what you're teaching. I'm not sure. I'm just going to say it.

[73:50]

But I'm curious as to why you brought up the notion of no silence. It seemed like a good open response to you, John, so that I was wondering if you had intentionally referred. Because what I understood John was saying is, for me personally, most of the life stays are necessary. And they're going to benefit from it. I'm not sure that's anything I'm sympathetic or connected about speaking. I don't see where that would necessarily affect someone coming from a different vantage point than mine, which would be silence. unless there were an occasion where I could speak for them. I didn't. Or speak on their behalf. I think it was just association. I wasn't at all contradicting. I think what John said was completely right. I think that's a way that we can practice. It's also true that even for people who are silenced, when they do speak, it's not necessarily that their speech is going to be any more selfless than mine, say.

[75:07]

But I guess what I heard him talking about was a kind of, self-evaluating or speech-evaluating practice that would lead you to remain silent. And my association was just to remember, in this room and outside this room, there are also people who are silenced, for whom their practice, there may be another practice that they need to emphasize. That's all. Does that make some sense? Yeah, in other words, this was required every week. Right, right. I had a comment of something that just actually happened yesterday.

[76:13]

And this has to do with work, and this A precept about speech has been something I've been working primarily on for a while. And part of my job is, at this time of the school year, is thinking about next school year and the kids that I work with, especially, who's going to be their teacher next year. So I was talking on the phone with another colleague. we were talking about this possibility, but what was different is that we both acknowledged that this was kind of awkward to talk about, because we were talking about other people that weren't there, and their styles of teaching, and in another context it could have been gossiping, but we were doing it as part of our work, and we were just

[77:15]

But what was nice is that we both said this was kind of awkward, and we weren't really gossiping. We were just talking about something that was going to be beneficial for this child. And in terms of styles, whether it was humor or not humor, strictness, looseness, and it was useful. But I think that's the first time I've actually had a conversation with somebody at work where we kind of acknowledged that it was a little uncomfortableness with it, but yet it was something we needed to do. And that made it easier than to do it and just kind of matter of fact about it and share ideas and then move on without kind of lingering. And these are actually the people we're talking about are people I don't even really know. So it's just, I kind of... You might though. I might, right. And I'm the person that's kind of gathering information and opinions to help some people make the decision about placement.

[78:17]

So it was, well, I think that gets to be part of that. It felt like that I was, you know, with my practices, I was doing that. And that was, that felt a little bit better than sometimes when there are things that you either do need to walk away from or just change the subject and say, you know, This was part of what I needed to do. I think it's part of the Dharma position that we're in. If you think of it as a Dharma position in your life, then that goes back to the quotation of Doge. When the Dharma fills your body, when you have an awareness of Dharma, then you have to realize and bow to the fact that where you can acknowledge and do so, that you have to risk this uncomfortable territory.

[79:27]

You have to risk, in order to hold your dharma position, you may have to do something that's not pure. It is actually good. It felt like it at the time. Right. It didn't feel, whereas there have been certainly other times when the whole tone can just feel very different. Right. And that doesn't feel right. But this felt okay. But you're treading, you're walking in an area where it also, you could go astray, even in the middle of it. And in order to keeps about yourself a value, you actually have to take that chance, which is putting yourself at risk, putting, in this case, with language, but also with yourself as a leader. I think that's really important to clarify.

[80:28]

It's not fault-finding. For the sake, fall finding is again, it's like, fall finding is just a flip side of flattery. Fall finding is about, if I fall in love with you, it's about me. It's about me wanting to appear above you. And then underneath that, if you want to psychologize a little, it's because of my own insecurity because I feel less. And so in this case, I'm driven by that thing that's missing. The sense of missing leads me to do something, to find fault, so that I can create this illusion that it's not missing. A little perplexed.

[81:31]

You know, this, since the shoes outside the door came off, you know, that is the truth according to one person's perspective. But what I'm surprised, I guess I'm talking up here, is that now that there's this book, people talk about it. So they're talking about these people, and he looked really bad, and he was like, Well, I'm not sure. Another way to say it is... That's a tricky thing because that was something that needed to be talked about, maybe, that wasn't talked about. Now that there's this book, it's like no longer secret. Yes, sometimes it's silence. Often it's just the energy that's not saying anything. It's a full stream. I mean, it's not like that book is the truth.

[82:41]

And I don't think it intends to be the truth. But there's this ongoing stream of talk and questioning and wondering about what happens in Cincinnati, Richard Baker and other people there. It's pretty corrosive. And now that there's books, oh, well, just read books. And then you can sort of like, OK, well, now I can set that as something. So it might be useful. Yeah, I felt it was really useful for that. But I was just going to question people talking about people in the book. Oh. Like, sort of like, OK, the gate is open. Now I can just talk about these people in this business. Somebody else could. Yeah. So we could talk about the whole thing. I think we know what to do. I just bring it up because I find it interesting.

[83:43]

Well, I think these questions that I'd like to leave you with, I wish we really could spend time practicing But some of the questions are, what lies have you told? Or what lies are you living with? There's so many, it's just a trickle. We said this. It's great. It's up to you. I mean, we're not going to come back to this. Yeah, did you tell a lie today? Did anyone tell a lie today? I was thinking about telling a lie. Because I don't want to do something like this on my own someday, so I was going to say it.

[84:50]

But I don't really think it's something that's going to go forward, so I was going to leave it at that. And I felt that was a kind of a misconception. That's another preset. That's not selling. You're using the chocolate of delusion. Yeah, I think that exists, the word chocolate. It's an easy example. I'm sure it's a lie. I'm sure it's a lie. I'm sure it's a lie. There's a way in which, like, it can tend to be lies today, but there are ways in which I would look at certain things in a situation with the idea that it would give the other person a false perception of something or someone else.

[86:12]

I tell the half-truths clearly. Well, I'll just say the situation quickly. So I went out to, I go, there's a bunch of us that go weekly in rotation to the federal prison in Dublin. And we were two groups that went in the prison, one of us was in the prison camp. And today, you know, I got up there, I drive out there at like 3.30. And there's supposed to be someone in the chaplain's office who has to escort me in. Even though I've got a badge, I can't go in. And there's nobody in the chaplain's office. And I waited for an hour. I'm a chaplain. What? And the guy at the gate, he was trying to find somebody from there. And the chaplain was across the way at the camp. I was pissed off.

[87:23]

So I went away, and I came back in time to leave my group for a visit to the prison camp. And I was, in his question, I was very nice to him. I said, but I also said, you know, I said, I was here. I said, nice, I was here with you. But I didn't say, where the hell were you? His attitude was sort of, well, you know, these things happen. I didn't feel satisfied. But I decided, OK, I'm just going to sit back and see what my feeling is tomorrow. And then I can always communicate something. When I was relatively direct with him, it was actually, he was trying to, he was putting it off on somebody else.

[88:27]

And I was ticked off because he wasn't taking responsibility for it. So I don't know what I'm going to do with that. But I know I didn't reveal to him my irritation. Partly because I was trying to practice with my irritation. Yeah, it was just that piece of it too. Right. say everything. Right, and it's not good to. That's not good practice. So why do you call it a half-truth? The half-truth was I was more polite to him than I wanted to be. Maybe that's not a half-truth. That's good practice. Yeah, it may be good practice. But OK, this is my conundrum, right? And this is a good one, maybe a good one to start, to stop with. But I think, coming out of my cultural background, this sort of Jewish sense of Old Testament sense of righteousness, I have this feeling sometimes

[89:45]

Well, I have to tell the truth. In that case, what I was doing was, well, is this true, useful, and timely? No. So that test applied. But still, there's this lingering sense, unresolved sense in me, which is what I'm still working with in my life, that did I withhold something from him or not? And maybe, maybe not. I don't know. But it's just, in a way, I'm still working with this. What's the question? Yeah, yeah. You asked the question, how would you respond to somebody else in the same situation? I mean, you would respond in the same way and say, I don't want to be personal.

[90:47]

Another thought is that this is a common pattern all over. Everybody's passing on responsibility. You also don't want to be personal. It wasn't personal. No, it wasn't personal. In some places, you could go in if you were a chaplain someplace, and you were a Buddhist chaplain. It would be personal with it. the Christians who he, you know, not welcoming. Anyway, what's the question? So the question is, are you just supposed to tell the truth in a situation like that? No, the question for me is to look at the unresolved part of me that still feels like there's a truce, you know, and I owe the world the truth, which obviously is more work to be done. Does that make sense? Especially if the truth is each other.

[91:48]

Right. Right. That's the truth. Right. And it would have been, you know, and all that really... He probably knows. He does probably know. But what was, again, to get back, this is really a good place to leave it. We should stop. But if it's about relationship, if the purpose of speech is about relationship, I think what hurts is that I tried to do something that was to express what I felt in a harmonious way, but I don't feel that he meant it. almost literally didn't meet my eyes. And his whole manner was just so lackadaisical in the relationship. But I did not feel met. That's where the hurt is. It's really good to get to what's hurtful. So this is helpful. That's what the hurt was for me. It's not that I didn't tell my whole truth, but that when I did say, and I was relatively cool,

[92:54]

He didn't meet me. But we like to feel connected. The whole purpose of this practice, the purpose of all these precepts, is so that we can actually meet. We use language so that we can meet and connect. We can disagree, but to meet. That's what those old ladies are doing. We have one more question. Thank you.

[93:33]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ