Okay. So after the incident, Hui Nung sent Hui Ming away, and then he said, sometime after that, I reached Tsokai. Does everybody have the place? So sometime after I reached Sokai, there the evildoers again persecuted me and I had to take refuge in Zo-ui, where I stayed with a party of hunters for a period as long as 15 years.

[02:57]

So he stayed for 15 years, maturing his practice. Ideally, when someone has Dharma transmission, it's good for them to go away for 15 years and be anonymous. Is that what you do? No. Unfortunately, in this country, we can't do that because if we did, there wouldn't be any teachers around. Or maybe they'd be in Mexico. Anyway, it's good, you know, to go away. Especially if you're young. If you're old, it doesn't matter. But if you're young, it's good to be sent away to mature.

[04:02]

So there are a lot of times that He looks young. Anyone under 50. I'm sorry? Anyone under 50. Under 50 is young? Yeah. Is there a particular place to mature? Yes. Mexico. Mexico? No, not Mexico. Where do you think that place is? Right behind your breastbone. Thank you. So if you're young, you should do it. A lot of times people start practicing when they're quite young, and they haven't really had much experience in the world. And they may have a good understanding of Buddha Dharma,

[05:06]

But at some point they should go out in the world and experience that aspect of things. So they understand people and understand people's problems. If you live in an isolated place, you may not understand people's problems so well. So you're saying to be a layperson as you study? It's not that you become a layperson, but you practice as a layperson. Practice so that people don't know you so well. in a kind of anonymous way.

[06:08]

Did these monks marry sometimes during this period, or, I mean, become involved with... During this period, monks never married. Okay. Monks didn't marry until the Meiji period in Japan, which was fairly recently. But monks have always been celibate. traditionally. So he stayed with these hunters. And the Fifth Patriarch told him, wait until you're a little bit more mature before you start teaching. Even though your understanding of the Dharma is good, you should mature yourself more before you start teaching. In America, we have to start teaching before we're mature.

[07:09]

And when we do teach, before we're mature, the teaching matures us. Because in order to teach, when you teach, you're also teaching yourself. And whenever you teach, you're always thrown back on yourself. And whenever you teach, you have to understand what you're teaching. It always throws you back on yourself, and that helps to mature your understanding. But this is true in all endeavors. When you teach somebody something, you learn yourself. So it's good to be a teacher, and people teach according to their understanding and the level that they are at. Yes? When people are empowered to teach there, there's a certain trust that they have the potential to reach a certain maturity, but they might not necessarily be there at the time of... That's right.

[08:19]

So entrustment doesn't necessarily mean this person is totally enlightened and perfect. It means this person is totally enlightened and perfect, but they're not mature, not necessarily mature. And so we trust because we see their potential, like Ross said, that we trust that in the process they will mature and do it. was correct, because we know that they have that kind of honesty and understanding. So he said, sometime

[09:24]

I took refuge, I stayed with a party of hunters for a period of as long as 15 years. Occasionally I preached to them in a way that befitted their understanding. They used to put me to watch their nets, but whenever I found living creatures in them I set them free." I don't know how you could have kept that up for 15 years. At mealtimes, I put vegetables in the pan or in the pot in which they cooked their meat. Or in which I cooked their meat, because he was cooking for them. Some of them questioned me, and I explained to them that I would eat the vegetables only after they had been cooked with the meat. So, he must have had quite a good relationship with them. After 15 years. Yes? As you're reading that, The concern for me is the incredible amount of patience that he must have, too.

[10:39]

Because for him to work... I mean, I just think to myself, if I were... I'm vegetarian for my own reasons, but it would be so difficult to live in a community of hunters, whose livelihood, I mean, the whole... the whole ecology for them, the whole... is precisely in Going after these animals, killing them, cooking them and all of it, that would seem to me that it would require a tremendous amount of compassion and understanding or whatever in order to live with that and not be torn and stuck. That's right. Patience and compassion and understanding are expressions of enlightenment. Aspects of enlightenment. He exhibited his patience for 15 years and also his tolerance and compassion for not judging people, but just finding his own way, you know, not discriminating or condemning people for the way they lived, you know, or complaining, but just finding his own way

[12:02]

in that setting. That's called maturing your practice, learning how to live under all circumstances. So you do your action, which in this case would be freeing the animals from the nets, but you don't go about telling people, don't do this? Well, it depends on the situation, the time, the place, and the circumstances. You might sometimes do that. That might be your way, too. But we don't know what he did. We just know that this aspect is brought out as an example. It was a bit like a lotus in the mud, so to speak. Yeah. That's right. We say we should exist like a lotus in muddy water.

[13:03]

The lotus only grows and finds its healthy aspect growing out of the muddy water. But the muddy water doesn't stain it. But it grows, it needs that muddy water for its sustenance. But it's not contaminated by it. It's a kind of, almost a political statement in this part of the story too, which is that Buddhadharma can be taught anywhere, to anyone. The teacher doesn't have to be teaching within a religious institution, a monastery, a particular practice place. following any particular religion?

[14:17]

I think that's a good point. Just part of being anonymous is that you just teach through your example, through the way you live your life, and that throws you back always on yourself. That's actually an aspect of lay practice. Everyone goes out in the world in their sphere of whatever it is, and not teaching, but presenting the Dharma through the way you live, without saying anything, or without overtly trying to teach. Sue? I'm just getting a lot of ideas about maturing from this conversation, and also on page 71, to attain supreme enlightenment, at least in this copy.

[15:19]

One must be able to know spontaneously one's own nature or essence of mind, which is neither created nor can it be annihilated. So one should be able to realize the essence of mind all the time. And that going out into the lay practice or into the maturing practice, it's like a test to see where you're thrown back out of yourself. That's right. Out of the essence of mind. And then I think that, you know, rather than looking at that as, oh, I failed, you know, I'm not in life. It's like, what can I learn from this? Right. And a person who's living in a protected monastery may not have, you know, the broad experience that's needed for that. Well, living in a monastery is also a broad experience. It's the same experience as living out in the world. It's just a smaller world. It's a narrower world. There's a hand up in the very back.

[16:21]

I can't see who it is. sort of out in the workday world, that's not at all true. And that actually poses a set of problems and challenges that are quite different. It's hard to live in a fanatic community where everybody's rubbing up against everybody all the time. It's definitely challenging, but I think it's different. The problems are not exactly the same, but they're just as big. Well, yeah, that's true. So, one day... One day, I besought myself that I ought not to pass a secluded life all the time, and that it was high time for me to propagate the law.

[17:32]

Accordingly, I left there and went to the Fat Ching Temple in Canton. At that time Bhikkhu Yen Chung, master of the Dharma, was lecturing on the Maha Parinirvana Sutra in the temple. It happened that one day, when a pennant was blown about by the wind, two bhikkhus, that's two monks, entered into a dispute as to what it was that was in motion, the wind or the pennant. As they could not settle their difference, I submitted to them that it was neither. and that what actually moved was their own mind. The whole assembly was startled by what I said, and Bhikkhu Yen Chung invited me to take a seat of honor and questioned me about the various knotty points in the sutras. Seeing that my answers were precise and accurate and that they showed something more than book knowledge, he said to me, �Lay Brother, you must be an extraordinary man.

[18:37]

I was told long ago that the inheritor of the fifth patriarch's robe and dharma had come to the south. Very likely you are that man. To this I politely assented. He immediately made obeisance and asked me to show the assembly the robe and the begging bowl which I had inherited. He further asked what instructions I had when the fifth patriarch transmitted me the dharma. Apart from a discussion on the realization of self-nature, called essence of mind, I replied, he gave me no other instruction, nor did he refer to dhyana and emancipation. Why not, he asked, because that would mean two ways. Two ways here means duality. That would mean duality. I replied, there cannot be duality in Buddhism. There is only one way.

[19:38]

So to come back to where I started, at that time Bhikkhu Yen Chul, Master of Dharma, was lecturing on the Maha Parinirvana Sutra in the temple. The Maha Parinirvana Sutra is quite a large Mahayana Sutra, which was translated by a Japanese scholar some years ago. And of course, everybody says the translation is terrible, and there hasn't been another translation since. So we don't know exactly. We haven't been able to read the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. But Mahaparinirvana Sutra has a lot of statements that are very basic to Mahayana Buddhism. And one of the statements is that all sentient beings have Buddha nature.

[20:45]

And there was a time when there was a question. Do all sentient beings have Buddha nature or are there some beings who are so? evil and so depraved that they don't have buddha nature. One who doesn't have buddha nature is called icchantika. But the sutra states all sentient beings have buddha nature and this became a very popular phrase and people took that very much to heart in China. And Dogen later changed it to, all sentient beings are Buddha nature, rather than have Buddha nature. Have is a kind of possessive statement.

[21:50]

Dualistic. Kind of dualistic statement. So Dogen said, oh. seem to be our buddha nature. Everything is an expression of buddha nature, including icchantikas. Sometimes we call bodhisattvas great icchantikas. That's a kind of endearing phrase. So it happened that when this is a very famous part of this, autobiography. And in the Mulan Khan, it's case number 29. And it's treated as a koan in the Mulan Khan, case 29. And I'll talk about it on Saturday. So I won't talk about it too much tonight. At that time, Bhikkhu Yenchong, master of the Dharma,

[22:53]

was lecturing on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra in the temple. It happened that one day when a pennant was blown about by the wind, two bhikkhus entered into a dispute as to what it was that was in motion. The wind or the pennant? They saw this pennant flapping in the wind and so they started this discussion. Is that the pennant that's moving or is it actually the wind that's moving? If you want to know, if you want to see the wind, you can't really see it. Wind is not something that you can see, but if you want to see the wind, you look at the flag, and the flag shows you the shape of the wind, or the leaf in the tree. If you want to know the nature of wind, watch the leaves on the tree. So, is it Is it the pennant that's moving or is it the pennant of the wind?

[23:59]

And you can bring about various philosophical notions with this problem. But Queen Noong comes along and says, it's not the flag or the wind that is moving, it's your mind that's moving. This is a lot better, right? But it's not the end. One day, there were 17 monks who were climbing in the mountains, going to someplace else, and they stopped at this inn. And at the inn was the old lady innkeeper who who was a disciple of Kyogen, who was a disciple of Isan.

[25:04]

And she was an enlightened disciple who was living as an innkeeper. Nobody knew who she was, really. They just thought she was just the innkeeper. So they stayed there for the night. And during their stay, they were talking about discussing this problem of the wind and the flag. And she overheard them talking. And so at one point, she came and she said, gentlemen, It's neither the wind, nor the flag, nor the mind that's moving. Now they're all awestruck.

[26:10]

It's not the wind, it's not the flag, and it's not the mind. What is it? Did they check out? Did they check out? Then they checked out. All 17. 17. In one blow. Actually, they were all enlightened. Except for the monks who were enlightened in the bath, there haven't been that many who are enlightened all at once in the history of Buddhism. So what is it? It is what? Thank you.

[27:13]

What? The answer is in the question. Always the answer is in the question. Seeing that my answers were precise and accurate, and that they showed something more than book knowledge, yet because he was supposed to have been illiterate, right? He would say, when people would ask him questions about sutra or something, he would say, well, read it to me. And then he would understand it. So he said to me, Lay Brother, you must be an extraordinary man. I was told long ago that the inheritor of the fifth patriarch's robe and dharma had come to the south. Very likely you are that person.

[28:16]

To this I politely assented. He immediately made obeisance and asked me to show the assembly the robe and the begging bowl which I had inherited, and I did that. He further asked what instructions I had when the fifth patriarch transmitted me the dharma. Apart from a discussion on the realization of the essence of mind or self-nature, I replied, he gave me no other instruction. So he just said, realize your self-nature. And he didn't refer to Dhyana. Dhyana means meditation. He didn't refer to Dhyana and emancipation. He didn't refer to meditation and freedom from suffering. Why not? He asked. Because that would mean two ways, I replied. And there cannot be two ways in Buddhism.

[29:17]

There cannot be duality. There is only one way. He asked, what was the only way? I replied. The Maha Parinirvana Sutra, which you have been expounding, explains that Buddha nature is the only way. For example, in that sutra, King Koh Kwai Tak of Bodhisattva asked the Buddha whether or not those who commit the four parajita acts of misconduct or the five deadly sins And those who are ichantika, which I mentioned, they call them heretics, would eradicate their element of goodness and their buddhanature. There's an asterisk here that says that the five deadly sins are patricide, matricide, setting the Buddhist order in discord, killing an arhat,

[30:25]

and causing blood to flow from the body of a Buddha. But those are not the four parajakas. Those are the five deadly sins. The parajakas are, I think I talked about this before, in the precepts. The precepts for monks, there are 250 precepts for monks, and the first four are called which means irrevocable transgressions. If you transgress one of these as a monk, you are out of the Sangha and you cannot come back in. Very strict. So one is having sex. That's the first one. The second one is stealing.

[31:26]

The third one is killing a human. And the fourth is speaking falsely about your attainment. So, in this example, for example, in that sutra, A Bodhisattva asked the Buddha whether or not those who commit the four prajakas, or the five deadly sins, and those who are ecchantika, outside of Buddha nature, would eradicate the element of goodness in their Buddha nature. And Buddha replied, there are two kinds of elements of goodness, the eternal and the non-eternal. Since Buddha nature is neither eternal nor non-eternal, Therefore, their element of goodness is not eradicated. So eternal and non-eternal are polarities, that's a duality. Although sometimes we use the word eternal, we don't really mean it, because that's not

[32:36]

a term in Buddhism, but we use it conveniently because it's in English. It's the only term we have in English. We could say, there are other terms, eternal or forever, but forever implies in existence, in the realm of existence. There's another term, Infinite. Infinite is another one. Anyway, so since Buddha nature is neither eternal nor non-eternal, therefore the element of goodness is not eradicated. Now Buddhism is known as not being dualistic. not having two ways.

[33:44]

There are good ways and evil ways, but since Buddha nature is neither, therefore Buddhism is known as non-dualistic. From the point of view of ordinary folks, the component parts of a personality, the skandhas and the factors of consciousness, the dhatus, are two separate things. But enlightened people understand that they are not dual in their nature. Buddha nature is non-duality. So he was asked, what is the only way? And he just explained what is the only way. Do you have any questions about what he said? Yes. I guess I've been sort of stewing about this ever since that who would What's the relationship between this self-nature, buddha-nature and emptiness?

[34:58]

And emptiness? The relation between buddha-nature and emptiness? In their own being all dharmas are empty. But he seems to be saying that it's not empty. He does? Well, he says that it's free from change, that it's intrinsically self-sufficient. Oh, but we didn't get there that far. Yeah, on page 73, when he wakes up and he says that, who would have thought? Oh, it came back, right, that is, right, I see, right. And then here it seems to be a reference back to that. Okay, so in reference to that, who would have thought that the essence of mind is intrinsically pure? So intrinsically pure, we have purity and impurity, right?

[36:04]

And purity and impurity is a duality. So intrinsically pure means non-dual. That's what he means by intrinsically pure. We have to use a dualistic word to express non-duality. So when he says pure, he doesn't mean the pure that is the opposite of impure. He means purity includes its opposite. And in Buddhadharma, especially in Zen, it's important that we understand that the pure Our purity is only found within the impure. Our purity is to be found within the impure. Like the lotus in the mud is an example. I don't have trouble with that. Okay, let's look at the next one. Intrinsically self-sufficient.

[37:06]

Yeah, intrinsically self-sufficient. means that the forms are forms of emptiness. It's like the ocean. The ocean is totally self-sufficient. But on the surface, it has waves. And if you live in the waves, you can't see the ocean for the waves. So, but the ocean is always self-sufficient regardless of what the waves are. The ocean doesn't depend on the waves. The waves depend on the ocean. In some sense, the ocean, I mean, you can carry a metaphor, you know. Of course, movement and stillness are not two things.

[38:11]

Can I ask a different one? One time, a long time ago, I often heard, you said that the intersection of form and emptiness is now. So is that what it means? Something like that? Well, I think that the intersection of form and emptiness is now. Yeah. How do you mean that? Is that what he means? Well, in that way it's beyond emptiness. That it's not about... That's right. Emptiness and form are just terms. It's just language. It's beyond form and emptiness. Self-sufficiency is beyond form and emptiness. Yes. Would a nature beyond form and emptiness? So are you.

[39:16]

Do you know why? No. No. Okay. I was going to say, because you're buddha-natured, but... Yes? Back there in the back. It's a little abstract. I agree. I agree. No. Let me find it here. It's a reference to something in the Parinibbana Sutra.

[40:21]

There must be some debate that's going on in that sutra. Could be. Yeah. That's right. There are two kinds of elements of goodness. I'm not familiar with those terms, but it would seem like one is absolute goodness and the other is relative goodness. So he's saying, since Buddha nature is neither eternal nor non-eternal, therefore the element of goodness is not eradicated because it's not dependent on these two aspects, eternal and non-eternal, or relative and absolute. In other words, a person's Buddha nature is not dependent

[41:25]

A person's self-nature, which is clued nature, is not dependent on whether they're a good person or a bad person. I think this is an important aspect, you know. I just have trouble picturing what absolute goodness is. I mean, I can picture relative goodness. Well, here, element of goodness, eternal and non-eternal. So that which is eternal goodness, I think, means

[42:32]

the way things are. We tend to judge and we say, oh, this is good and that's bad, you know. And we see creation and destruction and things we like and things we don't like and all kinds of horrors. And we tend to make judgments about how things are. But actually everything is good. eternally good. When you look back over eternity, so to speak, everything comes out exactly the way it's supposed to, but it doesn't come out the way we think it's supposed to. And then the relative aspect is goodness as opposed to So there's two aspects.

[43:40]

And he says, but since Buddha nature is neither eternal nor non-eternal, therefore the element of goodness is not eradicated. So this argument I'm not that familiar with, but that's my understanding. I mean, there's morality, there are the precepts, there are these crimes which are listed here, really, murder, and genocide, and some other terrible things that people do do. But then this is, I think, the difficulty of grasping intellectually that behavior, however, I mean, the most horrible behavior one could think of, I mean, I'm thinking of Dr. Mengele right now or something, you say, does this person still, does this horrible whatever have Buddha nature?

[45:08]

This, I mean, if we put it in specific terms, you know, when you think about that, I don't think it's not something that fits the context in which we ordinarily live. It doesn't fit our picture. It doesn't fit our picture. And we wonder how someone, say some person, or, you know, who does such horrible things, then what is root of nature? Well, there's the human world, and then there's disinterested existence. And we live in both realms. We live in the human world and we also live in the disinterested realm of life itself. And we're focused on the human world.

[46:12]

And we see the good and the bad of the human world, and we should, because human world is our world. But we don't care about the ant world, you know. You step on, you know, 500 ants, you know, and it may give you a little squishy feeling, but you don't think about it after that, do you? But think of the ants, you know. What do ants don't feel, you know? Ants don't have intelligence. Balance, continuously. It's going on continuously. That's the disinterested world, the realm, where events are just happening the way they happen. But it's very hard to stay in that realm. And if we have to be able to see from that, we have to be able to see from a disinterested position. Otherwise, we can't see clearly. But we also have to be able to see through the human eye as well. So we have this, you know, the Occam's razor.

[47:16]

is just seeing everything with a clean eye, without any judgment, without influencing what you see. Just seeing clearly. That's disinterested. And then the other eye is the human eye, which sees good and bad and right and wrong, and wants to preserve our society and make everyone comfortable. And because each one of us is human, we have respect for all humanity, right, and the creation. So both aspects are important. various qualities of kindness and public kindness rather than the opposites of those.

[48:35]

So that somehow it seems that the expression of the actualization of Buddha nature in human life has these positive qualities. Yes, that's what I said. So there's a kind of, it's hard to separate these these reference points, I guess. Well, that's what he's saying. Don't separate them. He's saying it's non-dual. Don't separate them. Doesn't it also mean that there's a difference if everybody has Buddha nature, but you cannot realize that, And you can behave in the ways that have been described, and in the moral sphere, you're terrible.

[49:42]

But that doesn't alter the fact that you still have Buddha nature, whether you realize it or not. It's still always out there, and at any moment, theoretically, even the worst person in the world could tune into it and become enlightened and realize their buddha nature and their life would be transformed. That's right. So everyone is buddha nature. Everyone is buddha nature. Self-realization is to realize what is. Right, exactly. And realization means to see what's real. discussions, we always head for the Nazis. We always head in that direction. And I'm not saying that as a criticism, because those are terms that we can see. But it's also true that Shakti Muni Buddha walked away from situations that he could not help.

[50:46]

not uncompassionately and not uncaringly, but he couldn't do anything in that situation. And in his lifetime, all he could do was to transmit the Dharma. He couldn't, within his lifetime, bring everyone to realization, even though we see him as having as much power in that realm as anyone could. And the same thing is true for us, even at our highest functioning moral stand, we're walking away from things every day. And it's like, we're still living Buddha nature. And so are the people that we walk away from. And it's, it's important, I think, to recognize, not to just look at things from this kind of turned around, from the standpoint of evil, you know, and say, well, is something missing there or not, but also from the standpoint And evil is also mysterious.

[52:01]

If it weren't for those same Nazis, I wouldn't be here today. So it's very mysterious. It's very mysterious that something that evil could have a good result and cause people to be more compassionate. And I'm not saying that Of course I'm not saying that people should deliberately do evil. Just that there is, literally speaking, there is evil. It does inspire wonderful acts of good. Yeah, well good and evil are like two hands, always working together. One is always the cause of the other. And how does evil inspire good? I mean, that's the crux of what we're talking about, is that ultimately good and evil are just dualistic terms.

[53:08]

And what's good today may be seen as evil at some other time, and what's evil today may be seen as good at some other time. Sue? On page 76, it said it's high time for me to propagate the law. Yeah. And I was wondering if you could talk a little about what that is. It means teach. Yeah. The Dharma. Dharma actually means law. I was wondering, as I was reading that little sentence that says there are two kinds of elements, the goodness eternal and the non-eternal.

[54:10]

Since Buddha nature is neither eternal nor non-eternal, therefore, and what follows didn't quite fit in for me. It's like, therefore, I would have expected for it to have said, it is beyond our concept of goodness. That might have been a good translation. of either annihilationism or permanence. Well, it is. Insisting that there's a permanent self or that there is a self that can be annihilated, you're going to always insist that you taught neither. Yes. I think it's... But, the element of goodness here is not eradicated because

[55:13]

There is neither eternal nor non-eternal. It harks back to the question, which is way at the beginning of that paragraph, which is put in the form of what happens to their goodness. Yes, that's right. I think that he's talking about, the element of goodness here actually means buddha nature. Their buddha nature, the bottom line is always there for everyone. And it means that everyone actually can be saved. I think that's what it means. means that no matter what someone has done, everyone is capable of salvation.

[56:29]

And so Buddhism is actually a religion of salvation. Well, they still have karma to work off. No matter what one's karma is, When the possibility, there's no one whose karma is so heavy that they can't be free of it. I was thinking about one of these. Oh, well, that is like payment, right? But the execution is not payment. I think that confession is payment.

[57:30]

Pardon? Repentance. is payment, right? So, when one, say, still has their life to live, and they have confession and repentance, then they are able, in the rest of their life, to work toward reconstruction, so to speak. In other words, that's a kind of pardoning, right? But at that point one should enter into some kind of practice which expresses their understanding. Well, it depends. It can take many forms. But it can't be.

[58:43]

It can be, but when one expresses it, then one hears it. And so actually expressing something into the atmosphere gives it some reality. Whereas just expressing something inwardly You may think you've done something, but you may not actually hear it. But you may. But the circumstances of the offense don't have to be publicly... No, you don't have to go announcing it to everyone. That's why in Catholicism you whisper it to your priest. And then, after you do that, then you should... Repenting means returning, right? returning, becoming whole again. So when you have some evil action, you separate yourself from wholeness.

[59:53]

And so what you want to do is become whole again, complete. And that's your salvation, is to become whole again. and then start from that place. So, and, you know, Dogen, if you read Dogen, he says repentance is very important. You know, you should set up an altar and offer incense and ask all the ancestors, you know, to help you. And it's important, you know, a part of life to empty yourself to let, you know, we hold on to so much, you know, and we don't know what to do with it. And it goes into our back. We carry it around in our back. And it, you can tell a lot of our people by their posture. By the way they hold their head, or the way they walk, you know, and what they're carrying around.

[61:00]

But people really pack it on their back. And it's a well-known fact that if you want to get rid of back pain, that you should forgive someone. Wow. Forgiveness takes care of a lot of back pain. Such a well-known fact that only you know. Well, now it's a well-known fact. No, it's so. Well, it's a well-known fact. I'm interested in the question that was asked before about somebody is in the world of fragmentation, duality, or whatever, and then there is repentance. Yeah. What happens then? At that moment, are they just in the disinterested world? In other words, are they just observing the effect of their repentance? Or is karma dissolved at that moment of repentance?

[62:16]

Of wholeness? Karma means action. So you stop the action. You stop the karmic cycle. But the fruit... still has momentum. So you still suffer often the momentum or the residual karma, the residual result of your actions. And so that is something you live with. Just because you give up and confess and repent, it doesn't mean that you don't still suffer the consequences of residual karma. We've been reading these Pali sutras.

[63:20]

There's this famous sutra about Angulimala, who was a horrible murderer. Angulimala means actually a necklace of fingers. He had the fingers of his victims that he cut off. made a necklace of. And he repented. And he became a very close and enlightened follower of the Buddha. But he was tormented by the things that he did. And he was consistently tormented by the relatives of his victims, who, even though they thought he was a monk, were angry. And ultimately, he was stoned to death. They killed him, and he knew that was going to happen, and the Buddha knew it was going to happen, and he had to accept that. His acts were really horrible, and the karma continued, because it was continued with the people who sold him.

[64:22]

But yet, repentance is not always good. You don't know exactly what the consequences of your residual karma is going to be, but whatever it is, you have to accept it. Did you ever read Monkey? Monkey is this story of Xuanzang, who was the Chinese Buddhist monk who went to India and brought back a lot of sutras in the early days of Buddhism in China. And Monkey is a tail, using Xuanzang as the central figure. But he has these, well, the Monkey King and some kind of grotesque guys

[65:30]

who have certain powers, but they're deformed in some way. But they all pledge to help Xuanzang on his journey. And when he comes into some trouble, one or all of them do help him to get out of the trouble. And that's their repentance. They'd all done terrible things in their lives, they were dedicated, they kind of repented, and they were still the same people, but they were all dedicated to helping, this is their practice, to helping, to being his bodyguard. And so sometimes people who have had a hard, difficult time in life, they dedicate themselves to the Buddha, or they dedicate themselves to somebody as their bodyguard or as their protector.

[66:33]

And this is kind of like their new goal in life. They become, work for humanity rather than trying to take from it. In Zazen, we're working in that place of non-attachment and this disinterested way of looking at things because we've seen the other side where it's gotten us and not gotten us. Yeah, that's right. We let go of everything. Zazen itself is repentance. It's returning to the One. So back to Mary's question, remember that?

[67:38]

So from the point of view of ordinary folks, the component parts of a personality, the skandhas, we know what the skandhas are, form. feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. And the factors of consciousness, which are the dhatus, the realms of consciousness, you know, we say they're eyes, ears, nose, tongue, eyes, ears, nose, ear, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, mind and body. And then there are the objects of these senses. And then there are the consciousnesses of these senses. So for the eye, there is eye consciousness. And for eye consciousness and the eye, there is an object.

[68:56]

Without an object, the eye and the consciousness don't work. When you go into a dark room, you don't see anything. So the eye is not working and eye consciousness is not working. But when light appears on an object, then we say, I see. So if there's no eye, then even though there's an object and a consciousness, you don't see anything. And even if there's a consciousness and an eye and no Even if there's an object and an eye and no consciousness, there's nothing seen. So all three need to be there. But people think that all three things are separate. That's what he's saying. They think the consciousness and the organ and the object are three separate things. But even though they are individuated,

[69:58]

They are not three things. They are one thing. Three things are one thing. So the object and the subject are fundamentally not separate. He's commented on several categories and said, actually we can reduce this to one thing, one mind essence. And he said, my teacher didn't talk to me about dhyana and emancipation. He just talked to me about essence of mind. And other people might talk about factor of consciousness.

[71:02]

These are Indian philosophical categories, but here we're not going to talk like that. We're not going to use that kind of dualistic speculative philosophy. And in the story about the flag and the wind also, it's like an Indian speculative philosophical discussion these two monks are having. Let's analyze it. What are the qualities of the wind? which is moving, and he says, no, forget that. And points back to a sort of mind ground. Right. So I think that's a good point. It seems like a... He's cutting through all the speculative philosophical... Is that a Chinese characteristic? It seems to me like the speculative philosophical It's much more Indian. There's been this enormous structure developed in India, and then all these writings and doctrines arrived in China.

[72:07]

That's right. It seems to be the strength of Chan to simplify that. To cut through all that is Chan. That's correct. It's an implied criticism. When you say India, it could be India, it could be Theravada, it could be any number of philosophical schools, but the Adi Dharma are the people who direct and taught this way. Right, but also there's a whole sort of classification of practice, which is Indian Mahayana thinking, in which you have a series of perfections, Paramitas. But when we get another couple pages to the discussion of prajna and samadhi, those are, again, Indian philosophical terms which have been used in a sort of progressive way.

[73:18]

And again, this teaching is going to respond to that by sort of collapsing them into one Well, what he does is he redefines all the categories of Buddhism and makes them simplified and demystified. When you read a lot of Mahayana Sutras, And you read the path of the Buddhas, the path of the Bodhisattva, it starts way up here. And then they're all up there in the clouds, doing these things that no human being could ever do.

[74:22]

And so, how could you ever reach such lofty, impossible heights? So what he does, he takes it all and brings it right down to earth, and he says, Just look at your own Buddha nature, you know. Very simple. Just, you know, this is a very simple way. You don't have to get into this lofty, lofty stuff. The lofty stuff that they're talking about, you just pull down the curtain and there it is, you know, in your daily life, just as you live it. That's what he's actually saying. Very immediate. Huh? Very immediate. Very immediate, yeah. Very immediate and simple. in plain language. So he puts everything into plain language. And he takes these terms and puts them all into plain language. And as we go through, you'll see how he does that. instruct at various levels of understanding.

[75:36]

But that's not true, is it, of Chan? The appeal is more direct. A more direct level of understanding isn't really taken into account. It's either there or not there. But there are levels of teaching, as there were in the early... In Chan, teaching is not teaching. It's not putting information into you. People want information. Well, the finger that points but isn't the moon, it doesn't quiver in different ways for different people. Well, there are different methods for different people. There are different, not methods, but expedient means for different people. there are. But some people need to, everyone needs something different.

[76:45]

And you can give everyone the same food, you know, like Ute held up one finger for all the questions. He probably I'm sure he said other things as well. They would have ran him off. Yeah. That old figure again? Get out of here. Somebody would have cut it off. But there are different, you know, you don't give everybody the same thing. Some people have understanding, better means of understanding. Some people need more basic understanding. So, you know, And you have to know what to give to each person, how to treat each person. But basically, you point to the person in one way or another.

[77:47]

You find it in yourself. Don't depend on me. I can't give you anything. All I can do is point you to yourself. And sometimes pointing to yourself, people get very angry. They get very angry when you lay it back to them. You don't like it. But that's the way it is. Sometimes what seems unkind is very kind. But he does simplify it. He makes it very clear. So from him, or from this era, Zen takes off and develops for the next 400 years with this kind of understanding.

[78:58]

So that's why this is such a touchstone for the later Zen. There was, Huynh Nung actually, I believe, existed. His mummy is still preserved in the temple. It's out cheap. I have a photograph of it that Bill Kwong took. His son took it when they were there. I have it in my office. I'll bring it next time. Can't you follow up on what Nick said? of that concept in China and Daoism as being one, the Dao itself, from which it comes to yin and yang and the million things on earth. So I think there's some coincidence there. In a lot of ways, Cha has always been looked at as

[80:01]

Right. There's a big influence, the big influence of Taoism on Chan. But I don't think it's correct to say that it's an amalgamation. Because Chan is still Buddhism. Although, throughout the history of China, there have been people who felt that Chan, and Tao, and Confucianism were three, the same thing. Oh yeah, there are temples there with all three of them, up on the altar, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius. Yeah. And there is that influence in Chan, those both influences, Chan is still Buddhism with that influence.

[81:10]

And so Buddhism is always assimilated. Wherever it goes, it assimilates the existing religious concepts and finds a place for all of them within it. That's always been the case. It sounds Christian. That's because we're used to Christianity. So it sounds Christian because we're used to Christianity. I think that Buddhism in America will have Christian influence, it will have Jewish influence, it will have psychiatric influence, because psychiatry is the religion of America.

[82:32]

They already have a place within Buddhism in America. It also seems like one American religion is activism. And I feel like American Buddhism is being influenced by it. Well, that's right. There's a conflict for me as I study Buddhism. I love Alan's thing of the Buddha. Yeah, I would say that activism, you know, plays, has a place, and... I was going to say something else. Oh, democracy. Democracy.

[83:39]

In Western Buddhism, democracy, you know. But the original sangha was very democratic. I think the original Sangha in Buddhism was always democratic. If I could bring the discussion to a point that you said earlier. You said something earlier that people get mad or angry because they say it comes back. You yourself said something last time, which was, it's here, it's right in front of you, but you don't see it. I almost came over to you and said, show me. I can't. I want to see it. Don't get too close. Huh? Don't get too close. But the thing is also that I understand is the question is, how do I see it? I mean, it's just like, it could take a whole lifetime and I still might not see it. Right? There's no guarantee that I'm going to see anything.

[84:40]

Nothing is guaranteed. Right, so somebody says, look at yourself. And I remember for years listening to Krishnamurti who was saying, look at yourself. And I couldn't see it. I mean, it's like... Well, you just have a limited view of yourself. We all have a limited view of ourselves. I hate to say that. It's nine o'clock. If we are moving exceptionally slowly, and I find it very interesting, everyone's questions are very enlightening for me, but talking about limits, how are we going to proceed?

[85:55]

I said that I would continue the class. Indefinitely. But also I'm thinking of continuing during the five-day Sashin to talk about it. And I'm thinking that maybe what I would do is give lectures in the evening. And so people that are not in the Sashin could come in the evening for a lecture. And the lecture just continue. So I know we're going very slowly, but for me, the most important thing is our discussion. It's essentially just a platform for our discussion. The reality is not in the book, it's in our discussion. Thank you.

[87:24]

God bless.

[87:24]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ