My last few talks have been on precepts relating to right speech, or to right attitude, and today I'm going to talk about the sixth precept. It's quite appropriate to talk about precepts after doing the bodhisattva ceremony, where we acknowledge our karma and renew our intention to practice and bring to mind the precepts. What we say in the Bodhisattva ceremony is, we say, vow not to slander.

[01:18]

A slander is maybe a derivative term, more than the main term. The feeling is more like not to dwell on the mistakes of others, or not to dwell on, not to criticize people. But slander, of course, is a form of criticism. So I want to talk about the various forms, but The wording of this precept can take various forms. One is, I resolve not to dwell on the mistakes of others, or I resolve not to dwell on the faults of others, so mistakes.

[02:27]

or when somebody does something wrong. Fault is like an impediment, some missing part, you know, like a pit, something you fall into, or you're going along a... And then slander is a defamation. trying to make a person look bad. Maybe for revenge or to gain something or to fault a person unjustly. Slander has the feeling of doing something unjustly. So the precept is, I resolve not to dwell on the faults or mistakes of others.

[03:41]

And the creative side of the precept is to create wisdom from ignorance. How do we create wisdom from ignorance? I don't know if we create wisdom, actually, might not be such a good way to say it. How we allow ignorance to be transformed as wisdom. So, Dogen says, Within the Buddha dharma, all practitioners of the Buddha way are the same path, the same dharma, the same realization, the same practice. So the faults of others will not be discussed.

[04:47]

In other words, not to talk about other people. It has to do with gossip or with idle chatter or setting someone up, you know, in some way. It's very interesting, our practice. Each one of us has an individual practice and a practice that we do together. In the area of fault-finding, fault-finding is like a comparative value. In the realm of comparative values, we find fault. In the realm of big mind or oneness, there's no fault-finding. Everything is simply as it is.

[05:54]

The wind comes, the rain falls, the sun shines, there is no fault finding. Although we try to sometimes find fault, you know, with the weather. It doesn't help. In the same way, our lives are without fault on one level. Everything is just the way it is. And in some way, we have to accept everyone just the way they are. You have to accept me the way I am. I have to accept you the way you are. At the same time, neither you or I are perfect in a comparative sense. In the realm of comparative values, we're just loaded with faults. and we're loaded with virtues as well.

[06:59]

So to talk about the faults of others is a kind of gossip. It's falling into the realm of comparative values. Also, talking about the virtues of people is the same. So if we say not to discuss the faults of others, you also have to say not to discuss the virtues of others. Talking about the faults and the virtues are both the realm of comparative values. We live in the world of comparative values, but we don't only live in the world of comparative values. For a Zen student, a Zen student should dwell in Big Mind. And Big Mind also includes the world of comparative values.

[08:12]

But it's not limited to the world of comparative values. So how do we deal with the faults of others when we see them? What's the basis for dealing with that? Everybody we know has some faults. If you have a boyfriend or girlfriend and you only see them occasionally, on a periodic basis, it's a romance every time. But when you get together and see them every day, then you begin to see the virtues as well as the faults, or the faults as well as the virtues.

[09:16]

And then, you know, how do you deal with that? How do you deal with what you, what irritates you, what you feel is problematic? So, you know, in the Buddhist, if you read Buddhist literature, you will come across the Mahayana and Hinayana literature, which, if you study that, that's very idealistic. If you read the Mahayana literature, there's a goal. Both are goal-oriented. The small vehicle is very goal-oriented.

[10:24]

It's to transform you into an arhat, which means you have left the world behind and you become this perfected person. So this is a kind of goal-oriented practice. And if you make a mistake, there are certain kinds of mistakes. If you have sex with somebody, or even think about it too much. I'm trying to remember the four prajnaka offenses. Claiming to have enlightenment when you don't. killing a Buddha and causing dissension in the Sangha.

[11:26]

These are offenses where you're just cut off from the Dharma and there's no redeeming way to get back in. This is the small vehicle practice. So it's a kind of practice of seeking perfection. as a goal. And very narrow. I think that's why it's called small vehicle. It's a narrow vehicle. It's like, it doesn't tolerate any... There are lesser offenses, of course, which are tolerated, but those offenses are not. And so very, very narrow, and only a few people can do that. And then there's the Mahayana vehicle, which is more the Bodhisattva ideal. Except that, if you read the early Mahayana, there are like the ten bhumis, the ten levels of practice.

[12:33]

And there's each one of them. The first one is so far beyond our reach, you know, that you wonder where it came from. And then the other nine are higher than that. So you just look at those and you say, well, you know, who does those? So fortunately we have our Zen practice. I remember Suzuki Roshi used to say, fortunately we have Zen practice for stupid people, stupid incompetent people. In a way, this precept addresses idealistic practice.

[13:37]

And I remember Suzuki Roshi used to say, if you follow the precepts literally, that's heresy. And I always thought, boy, that's an extreme thing to say. But I can see what he meant today. If you follow precepts as a goal to perfect yourself, to make yourself into somebody else, that's heretical. The goal of practice is to be yourself. And to be ourself, we have to accept ourself. And if you, I mean, this is true for psychology as well. In order to practice, in order to, the goal of being human is to be yourself.

[14:46]

There's an old Jewish anecdote about this guy who went to the rabbi and he was always complaining about not being good enough. And, you know, why can't I be like Moses, you know? And the rabbi said, never mind trying to be Moses. You should just be you. So we have these models of practice. Joshu and Tozan and Buddha. And these models of practice, when we read the literature and look at these models for practice, then we see how inadequate we are and how steeped in whatever it is, our faults and our shortcomings.

[15:53]

So, we have to be very careful. So there's what's called Buddha's Dharma and Ancestor's Dharma. Buddha's Dharma is the Dharma that comes down with Buddha as the ideal. And Ancestor's Dharma is the Dharma that's actually takes place in the world because Buddha is so idealized. Buddha is so idealized. So we have to be able to see through the idealization and see Buddha as a person. And it's very good to acknowledge Buddha's faults.

[16:58]

I don't know what they were, but every once in a while I run across a few. They're not Buddha's faults. We don't know what Buddha was really like, Shakyamuni Buddha. We don't know. But the important part is not the person, but the story. Because we never know the person, we only know the story. And the story keeps coming out of the imagination of various people. So, the story is important. But I think the person is also important. I didn't used to think the person was so important, but I do now because we have to be able to see the person as a human being. Buddha was not a god. the Romans used to raise their emperors to the position of gods, and the Buddhists tried to do that too here and there, but Buddha is not on the level of God, except, I don't want to get into this, there is in the Mahayana a substratum of

[18:20]

Buddha nature and so forth, which can be construed as deity. But as far as practice goes, the ideal is not our practice. Our practice is the actual. We don't reject the ideal. The ideal is something that supports our practice. But our practice takes place in the arena of our feelings, our emotions, our thoughts, and our actions. So how do we deal with that? No matter how we think about Buddha, where we are is our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and actions.

[19:27]

So, to own our own faults, so to speak, to own our own shortcomings, to accept our own faults, to accept our own shortcomings, and know where we stand in the world. You know, we try to get out of this perception of ourselves and to improve ourselves. But it's very hard to do that. Sometimes we would like to be somebody else, but we're not. So, if we look at The small vehicle, I don't want to criticize this, but if we look at the small vehicle, the goal is to transform oneself so that one never backslides again into being an ordinary person.

[20:40]

But the goal of practice is to be an ordinary person as an expression of Buddha. One of the tenets of our school is sentient beings and Buddhas are not two. Ordinary beings and Buddha are not two different things. But in the small vehicle school there are Buddhas and ordinary beings. And they're two different things. You graduate from being an ordinary person into being a Buddha or an Arhat. So, sometimes we have this idea, this ideal, but to be able to realize that as an ordinary person, we're also Buddha.

[21:44]

So to be able to accept ourself as angry Buddha, inadequate Buddha, jealous Buddha, discouraged Buddha, stupid Buddha. When we can do that, when we can accept ourself, then we can accept everyone else, the way they are, the way we are. And when we can accept everyone the way we are, there's still room for improvement. but working on ourself, not as a goal of leaving our faults behind, but to realize that each one of us is born with something that is hard to live with.

[23:18]

Each one of us is born with something that's hard to live with, and that is something that accompanies us through our whole life. And sometimes it has variations. But if you think about it, you'll see that there is something that's with us all the time. You know, I've known people for 20 years, 30 years, and they're still working on the same thing. And I think, well, when am I ever going to get rid of this? You won't. This is our thing that actually is our treasure. But we look at it as our shortcoming or that thing which we didn't have. But without that, Life would be different, okay, but because of this, it gives us something to work with.

[24:33]

And the way we work with that is how we develop our character. The pain that it gives us is our tool to work with our character, not to become something else, but to accept this and be ourself, and to be able to smile through our pain. To be able to smile through our pain, to not dwell on this thing that's ourself, that we identify with as ourself, which is not really ourself, but we do identify with it, And it humbles us. And we realize that we share this with everyone. We're all the same.

[25:35]

We're all on the path. We're all practicing the Dharma. But simply to let go and be ourself. This is what Suzuki Roshi meant when he said, when you are completely you, Zen is Zen. So, on the one hand, we see the faults of others and we criticize. On the other hand, we see the faults of others but we don't criticize.

[26:39]

How do you deal with people with the faults of others, what we conceive of as the faults of others, or perceive as, without fault-finding. So there's perceiving faults, and then there's fault-finding. So perceiving faults is simply to see things as they are. Finding fault is to make a judgment. Fault finding is to make a judgment. Sometimes we point out a fault. But how do we point out a fault without offending somebody?

[27:40]

When our fault is pointed out or brought into light, we feel exposed and we feel hurt and we feel angry and we feel defensive. How do you disarm someone? a person can actually accept their fault or accept whatever it is that's there without reaction. I think the important part is realizing that we're not separate from that person. Whatever it is that we see as their fault is also my fault. But we'll say, well, it's not my fault, it's their fault. But you and I are not separate.

[28:44]

We are separate, but at the same time, we're not separate. Whatever is your fault is something that's shared by me. if you realize that whatever is your fault is shared by me, then when you bring this up, you do it with compassion, because you identify with the person's fault, so that you're not separating yourself from the other person. As soon as you separate yourself, then the other person sees you as other, and then there's defense. So a person has their back against the wall and they can only be defensive or else humiliated. How do you bring up something without humiliating somebody?

[29:45]

Almost impossible. But it is possible. if there's identification. So to put yourself in the place of the other person, how would it be if someone was saying that to me? So you have to allow the fault to own the other person's fault. And then it's like you're bringing this up as something that you both look at. And then

[30:53]

At that point, it's no longer fault-finding. It's simply looking at the way things are. And when you can see it just as the way things are, this is turning ignorance, transforming ignorance into wisdom. as the precept says, transforming ignorance into wisdom. It means without avoiding, things are addressed. So on the one hand, faults are faults.

[32:01]

On the other hand, faults are not faults. We have to be able to see it both ways. There are many ways to address things. There's, you know, sometimes just to not say anything, but to address something in a way, to address a person in a way that you drop a seed and then that seed will sprout inside the person and open up inside the person and open their mind. so that you really are not doing anything except dropping the seed. That's pretty nice.

[33:04]

And then the person's actions and circumstances will water the seed at the right time it sprouts. And then they'll say, gee, I thought that up all by myself. Best way. Anyway, Do you have anything to say about it? Andrea? You know, this is one of my favorite things to talk about because it really, it's so, I take it really seriously, this particular one. And here's a little story about it. The other day I was actually in the community room and there were three people in there, myself and two other people. Anyway, one person was making a little complaint about something. Actually, a medium complaint.

[34:07]

And then that person left the room. And the two of us were left in the room, and this person was gone. And it would have been so easy. The desire to say something was very minimal for me. It would have been so easy to say, you know what? That's so-and-so. But if I had said something, it would have activated a scene and if the other person had it, it was such a wonderful experience just to not say anything and just to allow the thing to disappear because it doesn't exist anyway, except in this other person's mind. And I just think that everywhere on earth we could develop this practice more or practice this more and I think it's really important, and especially in a small community with so many people like this, it can kind of create a patina after a while because it just, like rather than polishing or sort of coating it with stuff that is maybe not true or negative or in any case, please stop classically.

[35:17]

If you're having a problem with somebody, I'll talk to you about it, but I don't want to classically. I'm reminded that Buddha was a monk. And it seems different to me. I look around the sangha, I don't see any faults. Other people's faults don't really concern me. But it seems, it feels different with my partner, my family, that their faults Well, there's a difference between Buddha's practice as a monk and your practice as a layperson with a family. Buddha as a monk is not attached to anybody or anything, so he can see things very clearly without partiality. But as soon as we have people that we're attached to, our family,

[36:19]

then it's very difficult to be objective enough to have no partiality. Because as soon as we have that kind of bond, it's very hard to be impartial. Is it something you would aspire to? It doesn't seem like impartiality would really be... I think it's something to aspire to. I'm not in the sense of a goal seeking something for yourself, but simply in order to create more peace in your life. Because impartiality is self. caused by self, self divides, so then you have partiality, right? So how do you have oneness? But still, within the oneness of a relationship, there's still partiality because they're two parts, you and them.

[37:24]

So both is necessary, right? But I think in the case of, this is like, Our life is a little different than Buddha's life, as a monk. A monk's life, you should have no attachment to anything, anybody. That's why there's no sex, you know, there's no relationship other than with everything. Because you have a relationship with everything, you don't have any special relationship. But in a marriage, you have special relationship. And so you have to work with that. And there's partiality, but to not be bound by the partiality, not be caught by it. Yes?

[38:29]

You said not to talk of people's faults, but not to talk of people's virtues. it was supposed to be good to talk of people's virtues? Well, in the same way that it's okay to talk about people's faults. So, on the one hand, you don't talk about people's faults and you don't talk about their virtues. On the other hand, you have to recognize people's faults, in a dualistic sense, and you also have to acknowledge their virtues. without being attached to their faults and without being attached to their virtues. That's what I meant. Peter? I've recently become aware of the relationship between I try to talk to him without losing my temper about how, you know, you can't talk this way because, because, you know, the, what you're really trying to do is just sort of get for me to be

[39:50]

And just trying to kind of not be sort of caught up with everybody else's issues, is there? Or what I perceive their issues are, is there? Yeah. But also the, trying not to find fault with him. That's right. There are two things that I taught Daniel. One was to ride his bicycle and the other was to drive a car. Otherwise he would never let me teach him anything else. But... Teaching him to drive the car, I would always laugh at his mistakes. And then we would both laugh at his mistakes. Somehow I had enough confidence in driving that I never got worried about anything. So we usually a parent can't teach their kid to drive, you know, that's temporary But this is the one thing that worked because I think is because I Never criticized him.

[41:18]

I always just laughed and then he'd laugh and we had a great time laughing at his mistakes But they weren't mistakes, you know, they were just errors You were talking about the skillful way to talk about people's mistakes or faults, but when is it, or why would you talk about people's mistakes or faults? When would you? When, why would you, and when is it appropriate? Well, we have the idea of right and wrong, good and bad.

[42:29]

So you have to take that into consideration. Is it worth it to do this? Is it realistic to do it? I kind of, more and more, am thinking about the laughing part. I think it's because then the person doesn't feel criticized. You can say something, but it doesn't feel like criticism. In other words, it's simply, you know, when you can laugh at something, that's just an example, right? But then you don't, you don't feel the humiliation or the need to be defensive because there's the identity.

[43:33]

As long as there's the identity, you know, then you have something to work with. Often I say to people, you know, I'm like this too. You know, I always get in trouble doing this, you know, and so I understand what you're going through or what you're dealing with. And so then you're on the same level. And then there's some openness. There's an arena in which to let the thing open up. That's more or less the way I think about it. Jerry? I think I've been struggling with this a lot in a work situation, having to supervise people and really how to deal with something happening that doesn't further the goal or the work. And yet, not to do something that's really ego damaging because that's not really good for anybody.

[44:39]

And so I've kind of been than trying to work with, rather than good and bad, different or one way or another way. I'm not sure if I'm fooling myself. No, there are, I mean, and I think I've tried to do that a little bit in working with this in my own life, too. I mean, as soon as I say, you did a bad thing, then I get stuck in my own problems with that. But if it's different from the way I would do it, then we can talk about Yeah, I think that you start with the soft approach. You don't use the hard approach until there's no other way, but I think just start using the soft and subtle and identification approach, you know? And see how people respond. Yeah, I mean, because some people are sloppy. Yeah.

[45:40]

Yes. So I mean, the only thing I mean, that really. So I've been pressed in different ways of saying that, like, maybe it would be easier for you when you want to find something. And that actually does. I mean, sometimes that works. I've been thinking about the same kinds of things, about this setting where you compassionately address someone. I'm just trying to see a place where the compassionate suggesting person draws, where do they draw from if they've never had this experience in their material life, in the life on this earth?

[46:49]

I mean, say someone is a, well, I can think of a million. Say someone is a chronic liar, and this has been revealed over a year or two, and you address this person, and you honestly don't have that in you. I'm thinking as we talk, what big mind is something we keep in mind that we do have these things on some level or, you know. Well, I know that I could be a liar. And I can identify with someone who's lying. And I've done that. I mean, I've lied. Excuse me. How about Cedid? Serial killer then. I'm not going to tell you about that one. It's just about time to end. We can go on and on. I just want to say one thing. Oh yeah, I had this little thing, which you probably know about.

[47:51]

This is from an old talk by Suzuki Roshi. He says, in our scriptures, Samyukta Gama Sutra, it is said that there are four kinds of horses. Excellent ones, good ones, poor ones, and bad ones. The best horse will run slow and fast. Right and left, at the driver's will. Just does it, you know. Driver says, go right, left, he just, you know. And before, and then, before it sees the shadow of the whip. It doesn't even have to just... The second best will run as well as the first one does just before the whip reaches his skin. The third one will know how to run when it feels pain on his body from the whip. The fourth one will run after the pain penetrates to the marrow of his bones.

[48:55]

You can imagine how hard it is for the fourth one to know how to run. When we hear this story, almost everyone wants to be the best horse. Even if it is impossible to be the best one, we want to be the second best. This is, I think, the usual understanding of this story and of Zen. You may think that when you sit in Zazen, you will find out whether you are one of the best horses or one of the worst ones. Here, however, there is a misunderstanding of Zen. If you think the aim of Zen practice is to train you to become one of the best horses, you will have a big problem. This is not the right understanding of Zen. Actually, if you practice Zen in the right way, it does not matter whether you are the best horse or the worst one. That's not the point. When you consider the mercy of Buddha, how do you think Buddha will feel about the four kinds of horses? He will have more sympathy for the worst one than for the best one. When you are determined to practice Zazen with a great mind of Buddha, you will find the worst horse is the most valuable one.

[50:01]

In your very imperfections, you will find the basis for your firm, way-seeking mind. Those who can sit perfectly, physically, usually take more time to obtain the marrow of Zen. the true way of Zen, the actual feeling of Zen. But those who find great difficulties in practicing Zen will find more meaning in it. So I think that sometimes the best horse may be the worst horse, and the worst horse can be the best one. But don't discriminate between them.

[50:33]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ