Good morning. It's a pleasure to have Ron Nestor as our speaker this morning, or Saturday. And Ron is an old friend, an old member of DCC. And he's been a dean since the early 70s. Currently he's the class coordinator. He's married and lives in Oakland. He was Shuso in 94, more or less, and he has been given lay entrustment by Sojourn Bush. Let's hear his talk. Thank you, Ryo. I'd like to talk about a call-on or a case this morning from one of the three call-on collections that we have accessible to us nowadays. But we have a wide range of people here. So I'd like to know, this case is, people who have been around a long time are very familiar with it. It's Ordinary Mind is the Way.

[01:02]

But I'm curious, how many people have never heard that case or that call-on or know that call-on? If you could just raise your hand. Okay, so only about one quarter of you haven't heard it. Okay. How's that? One, two, three, four. I can get closer. Just let me know if it gets too loud or not loud enough. Okay, so most of you know this case. That's good. On the other hand, sometimes when you know something well, you take it for granted. And why I picked this case was because it's so fundamental to what we're doing at BCC and Soto Zen in particular. And even though in some sense it's relatively simple, each of the parts of it are worth looking into or inquiring about.

[02:16]

It has a structure to it that's appropriate for that. First of all, just a brief introduction about call-ons or cases. Call-on just means it originally came from the Chinese word for legal precedent. So I like to call them cases because call-on reminds me more of a Rinzai practice where you work with your call-on during sitting, during zazen. And then you're constantly checking in with your teacher. And then you pass a call-on apparently. And then you go on to another call-on. So we don't work with them like that. We work more with them like studying, something to discuss. And then it kind of hovers in the background. Even though you may have a conceptual idea of it, being able to bring that into your experience is something which happens maybe in the background.

[03:20]

It happens. But we use them more to discuss and to study. I personally find them really interesting. And we have these three main collections that are all based on basically conversations that Zen teachers had in the Tang Dynasty, China. So medieval Chinese people and having conversations, mostly the teacher and then a student or a teacher in the assembly. So when you read them, it seems rather formal and like kind of a declaration. But actually they came from just conversations or talks in the meditation hall. And maybe they weren't so formal. When you read it, though, it looks fairly formal. This particular case comes from the Mumon Con, which was assembled by Mumon in around the 1200s.

[04:27]

It's more contemporary with Dogen. So the case is based on a conversation going back several hundred years. But Mumon puts a brief note to it and also a little verse. This con involves two teachers who are very eminent in Zen history, Joshu and Nansen. Nansen was a teacher, Joshu was a student. And Nansen's teacher was Matsu. It was a really powerful character in Zen history, although not a lot of words come down from him. But his actions and his spirit are still pervasive in Zen lore. Nansen, I give you some feeling because it's also important with these cases, realize these are real people.

[05:28]

These are not just sort of like a Japanese or a Chinese name in the past. But these are actually really people. And in a sense, in our spiritual sense, they're our ancestors. And just like your own ancestors in your family, they have some meaning to us. So Nansen worked with his teacher Matsu until he was in his mid 40s and Matsu died. And then he was basically a hermit for another 30 years. So at middle age, he goes off into the mountains and spends 30 years more, but more or less by himself. Although in China, hermits, they kind of knew each other's presence and it wasn't just totally solitary. And then it was only after that, that he taught for maybe 10 years when the character from the government asked him to come down off the mountain and teach them. So he only had a 10 year teaching career and didn't start until he was in his mid 70s.

[06:31]

And Joshu, who worked with Nansen, didn't start teaching until he was in his 80s. But he made up for that by living to be about 120. So they say. And you know, a very modest little, I don't know if you can really compare it, but a minor version of this is Sojin. Sojin started practicing in the early 70s over on Dwight Way. And he didn't see himself as a teacher per se. Suzuki Roshi just asked him to lead the Berkley Zen Center. So he organized it. And he used to say, my job is just to provide a place for people to do Zazen. And it was only later, maybe more in the 80s, that he started to really come on as, you know, became Abbott.

[07:36]

And then he took a real teacher role. So he was always a kind of teacher, but he didn't take the kind of full-blown role for, I don't know, 15, 10, 15 years. And he would not even put his own talks in the newsletter for like 10 years or so. He would only put Suzuki Roshi's talks in the newsletter. And then at some point he decided he felt okay about putting his own talks in. So these are all people who practice and they're not in a hurry to be a big teacher or a teacher. They just practice until they feel they're ready. And then they start to teach if people want to listen to them. So here's the case, even though you've heard it many times. Joshu asked Nansen, what is the way? Ordinary mind is the way, Nansen replied. Shall I try to seek after it, Joshu asked.

[08:37]

If you try for it, you'll become separated from it, responded Nansen. How can I know the way unless I try for it, persisted Joshu. Nansen said, the way is not a matter of knowing or not knowing. Knowing is delusion and not knowing is confusion. Another translation is not knowing is blank mind. When you have finally reached the true way beyond doubt, you will find it as vast and boundless as outer space. How can it be talked about on the level of right and wrong? With these words, Joshu came to a sudden realization. Mu Man's comment, very short, is Nansen dissolved and melted away before Joshu's question and could not offer a plausible explanation.

[09:39]

Even though Joshu comes to a realization, he must delve into it for another 30 years before he can fully understand it. And Mu Man's verse is, the spring flowers, the autumn moon, summer breezes, winter snow. If useless things do not clutter your mind, you have the best days of your life. Or another translation is, this is your best season. So, if you just go through this case and don't take anything for granted, there's questions that arise, or there's questions for me that arise. So first of all, just what is ordinary? What are they talking about when they use the word ordinary? And I don't know if you've considered that or if you have a feeling about that or a thought about that.

[10:44]

But if it's just ordinary, like everyday life, that makes sense. You know, just our everyday life, that's what we have to work with. In other words, not something practiced in the way, excuse me, the way, let me go back to just the word way. The way is Dao in the Chinese, so ordinary mind is the Dao. And way has, Dao comes from the word path. So it's like path, and it could be a path of what you're doing in your career, the path your life takes, also can be a path of the universe, the universe's natural order, that kind of path, or harmony. So the word ordinary is often, you can't discard the word ordinary as like everyday mind,

[11:51]

just the way we are everyday-ish. But also, it doesn't seem like it's quite enough, because if that were so, it's a little too flat, in my opinion, to describe. It makes sense, but I have a feeling there's more to it than that. And I think the other way of understanding ordinary is like very plain, stripped down, essential, non-adorned, something that doesn't have, there's no need to augment, there's no need to build on something, just as-is.

[12:56]

So more ordinary as-is, but very radical kind of as-is, just as-is. And we have a hard time being as-is, because we always want to be something a little bit different than we actually are. And, interestingly, Matsu, although he didn't leave many words, he did leave this statement, which you can see where Nansen is getting his teaching. So Matsu said, also you can pronounce it mazu, Matsu said, The Tao, or the Way, does not need to be cultivated so long as it is not defiled. What is defilement? It is anything like thinking life and death, pretentious performance, and mental orientation.

[13:58]

I'll repeat that line. It is anything like thinking life and death, pretentious performance, and mental orientation. If one wants to attain Tao straightforwardly, ordinary mind is the way. What is the ordinary mind? It is freedom from pretentious performance, from duality of yes and no, taking and giving, discontinuity and permanence, temporal and sacred. The scripture says, It is neither the deluded behavior nor the sacred one. It is the bodhisattva's behavior. Everything from walking, standing, sitting, to lying down, from responding and receiving at the moment, is the way. So basically he's describing two different ways of understanding ordinary. Everything we do is ordinary, but also ordinary is when we don't see things from a dualistic perspective only,

[15:03]

and we can see the other side, and ego isn't dominant. So basically it's just Buddhism. So to hold these two kinds of ordinary at the same time, one is just everyday-ish, and the other is, what are we, you know, Suzuki Roshi said about making effort in practice, he said making effort in practice is, let's see, okay, letting go of whatever is extra. Making effort in practice is letting go of whatever is extra. So letting go of whatever is extra is what, that's another way of understanding ordinary, along with everyday mind. And you put these two together,

[16:09]

and you've got a very full array. Okay. I had, when I was, a long time ago, had two roommates in Berkeley, Carmen and Fred, who had just come from New York, they were all pretty young in our twenties, and he had just, they, these guys had taken a lot of LSD, and they had just become inspired, and just felt that they had to come out west to Berkeley, and just, you know, enjoy this whole realm of the late 60s, early 70s, and because they were going to get enlightened, and they had these terrific experiences on LSD.

[17:10]

And, and they, they joined Targtine Tulka's group that was up in the north side, and I think they're still there, a Tibetan teacher who I met on one occasion. And, but he, you know, the way they supported that organization was to do house painting, that was one of the ways. So they would ask the members to help paint houses so they could earn money for the group. And Fred said, was, was really irritated that they were asking him to paint houses. And he said, he, they're asking me to paint houses, and I'm Buddha. So, you know, so that's the problem, you know, like, he was serious, too. He was, he, he said it seriously. And he really had that feeling, that how could they be asking him to do something so plain, so, so mundane, when he came out here to be enlightened. And then he goes on to say,

[18:19]

shall I try to seek after it, which makes sense. I mean, okay, so now you've telling me that, what am I going to do about it? If you try for it, you'll become separated from it. How can I know the way unless I try for it? Persisted Joshu. So there's a dilemma. If you try for it, it goes away from you. And if you don't try for it, does anything happen? and even Matsu's saying that you don't need to cultivate the way, basically, you just don't defile it. And so, you know, we have way-seeking mind talks on Monday. Right? Monday mornings. So, and, so what's a way-seeking mind talk? We're seeking the way. And then he's saying right here,

[19:22]

if you seek it, it goes away from you. So how do you reconcile that? Yeah. In a way, you know, I think I could try to make some explanation for it. But I think this is one, you know, Suzuki Roshi said about when you're talking about koans, it's better just to make suggestions rather than try to explain the whole thing. That was his, and he was saying that in particular about this case. So you can explain it, actually. You can make rational explanations for everything that's being said here. But it doesn't mean that we get it just because we can make a good explanation for it, really. It's our experience that counts. So, I mean, it's kind of interesting,

[20:23]

just to hold that problem of how do you, how do you put effort into practice without pursuing something? And, of course, we have the whole thing about gaining mind. Sojin's big on, and Suzuki Roshi was too, about not being caught up in gaining mind, egocentric or self-centered, trying to kind of self-improvement. Suzuki Roshi felt that that Americans are really concerned with self-improvement, you know, much more so than the Japanese, which is interesting. He didn't actually see Buddhism as a way of self-improvement. At least when he gave this particular talk, he didn't. Because he would say opposite things at different times. So, the way I...

[21:23]

So now I'll give you my explanation after saying that. My explanation is, and my way of understanding it is, is open mind. So, way-seeking mind is an open mind. It's a mind that doesn't have something, an objective, like a vision of enlightenment, or a vision of purity, or a vision of being a really wonderful, nice guy. Or... You know, it doesn't... You don't have a particular idea, except it's kind of more like an expression of being open-minded, knowing that recognizing my own ignorance, recognizing my own ignorance, I would like to find out what's the other side of being so ignorant, you know? So, but I don't know what that is.

[22:24]

I can read about it, and I can say stuff about it, but I don't really know what that is. So, that open mind which is ready to find out something, and which is always changing. So that's how I reconcile that. So, to have two... Way-seeking mind is an open mind, but it's not a mind that is pursuing something in particular, some idea. And then he says, the way is not a matter of knowing or not knowing. So here's another problem. So you have to wonder, what is it when we know something? And what's the problem with... Why couldn't we know this? Why isn't this something that we can know? Why is he saying you can't know it?

[23:26]

It sounds good. I mean, it sounds kind of profound, but... and non-dualistic. So you can just chalk it off to being non-dualistic, but... Also you wonder, well... What is knowing? What is not knowing? And how much do we take that for granted, what that is? And on what level do we know something? On what level do we not know something? And also when he says, not knowing is just a blank mind, what about beginner's mind? You know, beginner's mind is like... Suzuki Roshi said about beginner's mind. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities.

[24:33]

In the expert's mind there are few. So what about the beginner who doesn't know something? Is that just a blank mind? Is there something wrong with that? That's just an open mind too. Also, as soon as you talk about knowing something, there's different ways of knowing. There's intellectual knowing, conceptual knowing, which is what we engage in a lot, and there's experiential knowing. There's aspects of our life which we just know without thinking about them, without even having an idea about them. We're just familiar with... In a way, intuition works like that. It seems like kind of... almost a little mystical, mysterious, how intuition works. My feeling is intuition is just based on

[25:34]

our past experience, that we have some feeling for how something works, particularly when it's something that we do a lot or we're skillful at, our profession, our family, something that we're very familiar with. We have some intuition that goes beyond what we can actually put into words or is not dependent on what we can put into words as your thought. And it doesn't mean it's always correct either. Sometimes intuition is just not correct at all. But it's a way of knowing that's not... It's not like, here's me and here's what I know. It's a separation between me and what I know, which is the problem. And in terms of, also in defense of not knowing,

[26:41]

there's another case where with Dizong as a teacher, and a student comes to him and is going on pilgrimage. This is a pretty advanced student who later becomes a teacher. And this student says, I'm going to go on this pilgrimage to different monasteries and see different teachers. And Dizong says, why are you going on pilgrimage anyway? Why are you doing that? Why are you pursuing that? And the student says, I don't know. And it's not like, I don't know. It's like, it's a very deep, I don't know. And Dizong says, not knowing is most intimate. So the intimacy of not knowing. So just to add color to this,

[27:46]

there's different ways of looking at it and understanding it. So then, so how can it be talked about on the level of right or wrong? You know, in Suzuki Roshi's talk on Ordinary Mind, he mentions this, and he mentions this Thanatasa Hara. This is a couple of years before he dies. And he mentions a student who came into the Zen Do on a very cold morning, all bundled up, you know, like with a down parka, just maybe a hat on, you know, just because it's cold down there in November. And Suzuki Roshi said to him later, you know, you don't really have to be so covered up. Don't be so afraid of the cold. And then, so the next day or two years later,

[28:50]

the student comes in, and he's wearing just a single shirt. And it's really freezing cold outside. So Suzuki Roshi uses this as an example of that the student was caught by, well, there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. So the wrong way to do it was to get too dressed up, and the right way to do it would be not to be like that. So he was bouncing back and forth between these extremes because he was caught by, this is right and this is wrong, rather than seeing that it's a mix. And he used another example of a student that was very disciplined in following all the rules exactly at Tassajara. And then he started, oh, and then Suzuki Roshi said, well, you don't need to be so rule-bound. Just get more of a feel for what we're doing. It's not just a matter of how you follow the rules.

[29:52]

And so next week, the student came to him and said, well, I've thought about what you say, and I agree with you. I think I'd like to leave Tassajara for a week or so and just take a week off, go into Monterey and come back. Would that be okay? And Suzuki Roshi said, no, it would not be okay. But he let him do it anyway. So again, you know, it's a bouncing back and forth between what's right and wrong. And of course, right and wrong is a fundamental duality. And Zen, as you know, is all about duality and non-duality. You know, how we orient our life based on attitudes or opinions. This is right. This is wrong. This is this. And this is that. And we take that so seriously.

[30:56]

And then, of course, there's the song from the early 70s. The country version is particularly good. And the title of the song is If Loving You is Wrong, I Don't Want to Be Right. So that's another example of American non-duality. Okay. More or less. We need to stop and be out of here at ten after. Five after. Okay. So I'll end. And the spring flowers, the autumn moon, summer breezes, winter snow. If useless things do not clutter your mind,

[32:02]

you have the best days of your life. So this is the kind of ordinary, again, that Matsu was talking about. And this casual phrase, if useless things do not clutter your mind, it's a huge thing he's saying there. But it sounds very, if useless things don't clutter your mind, it's a really, it's a significant thing that he's saying. So, you know, we have our different seasons, all the different experiences in our life and different colors in our life. And what he's saying is that any of our circumstances are okay, can be okay, if useless things don't clutter our mind. And so this goes back to Suzuki Roshi's,

[33:02]

our effort is letting go of what's extra. You ask, what's extra? And again, you can, we can talk about from a Buddhist framework, what's extra? Belief in self, belief in permanence and so forth. But I think we all have to find out what's extra. That's the experience. We can talk and talk and talk about it. And we set up a kind of framework, which is helpful. But really, we have to find out what's extra and what's useless. And I think we can get caught with the whole richness of Buddhist practice. The koans are very subtle. They go into all kinds of nuances. There's 248 that we can work with easily. And they're all about duality and non-duality, but they're all,

[34:04]

have nuances which are variations. So we can get caught up in that. We can get caught up in the whole DZC kind of identity, and so forth. But what it comes down to is just Buddha's second noble truth, which is understanding or looking into our craving, how we're always craving something. It's very extraordinarily simple. It really is. So if we get too fancy or too elaborate, it should always come back to, what's our sense of craving? If we have a desire, can we just come up and then let it go? Or do we have to keep working on it, working our desire, working our desire, working our desire? Okay, so do you have any questions or comments? The first person I'm going to call on is Jed,

[35:06]

who I meet weekly. We go to a cafe, and we take a koan each week. So I've talked about this case with him, so what do you have to say? Thank you so much for your talk today. I really appreciate the way in which you framed this koan. I wanted to make a comment and then ask you a question. The comment is that I'm sort of like those people that took a lot of their OSD and ended up at Berkeley. I didn't expect that I was going to be enlightened. I didn't think I was going to learn anything from being at Berkeley, but I found myself here many years after I stopped taking LSD. But I was talking with you a couple of days ago,

[36:09]

and I thought maybe you could remind me about this one phrase that I thought you were going to explain to us, but you didn't explain it. Or maybe I just was tripping, and I was not actually having that phrase. So the phrase was about when you're enlightened, that as you're going on the path, you don't pick up anything along the way. And you think that's funny, but I think it's profound. No, I think it's funny that I'm remembering back to our conversation. That's all. No, I don't think it's funny at all. You don't? No. I think it's wonderful. Jed's right. This is what Dengxian said. They asked him, what is ordinary mind?

[37:10]

And Dengxian said, it's walking the path, but not picking stuff up. Thank you for reminding me. I think it's a wonderful comment. It's so succinct and so ordinary, and it says a lot. Judy? Thank you. I was wondering if you might comment on, so to speak, ordinary sangha or spiritual friendship in terms of these right now, the best days of our life, and also incredibly difficult, painful, confusing, sorrowful days. Also, other things. A lot of the time, it's how I'm experiencing it. So I'm wondering, how do you see ordinary sangha in this ordinary mind? Well, everybody is just who they are,

[38:12]

whether you like it or not. And we like some people we have in the sangha, some people we have a really strong chemistry with, other people we don't, just personality-wise. And for me, it's a matter of appreciating all the differences, and also recognizing that, oh, I like this and I don't like that, but not taking that particularly seriously. I think it's appreciation that each person is who they are. Period. Does appreciation include, say, in the spirit of this case conversation, you know, laying one's body down in a congressional office, standing up and saying, this is not okay.

[39:15]

And if so, how is that ordinary? Why isn't it? Just because it's not what, on an everyday basis, if you... It's your attitude that makes it ordinary, basically. Yeah, yeah. I think that's the main thing. Charlie? Ron, I was wondering whether your former roommates were ever exposed to the idea that they're already enlightened. Probably not. They just had these very flashy experiences that were so grand. That's what they're... You know, so they had these visions of this exalted state, you know, and they were trying to get back to that. Good luck. Ross?

[40:18]

Thank you. When you're in the presence of something extraordinary, how do you see it as also ordinary? Something extraordinary is also ordinary. I'm trying to think of what I've seen that's extraordinary. Well, I'll just tell you the first thing that comes to my mind, and it's not necessarily exactly what you're asking. Um... In a way, humor is related to what you're saying, partly. I was looking... I was driving, and I looked up at the top of a building. Oh, there was a big billboard. This was in San Francisco. And a really big, flashy billboard with, like, firework kind of images on it, way up kind of high. And then on the very top of the billboard, there was a little pigeon standing. And I thought, that's really funny. You know, that would make a great photograph. This little pigeon, you know,

[41:19]

standing in front of this grand firework display on a billboard. Because the contrast between this little pigeon, just... He didn't care about all the stuff behind him. And the little pigeon and this dramatic thing up there was just, um... To me, that was, like, just as ordinary. And that's the extraordinary. And... That's it. You know, it's just like... It's just ordinary. The whole contrast is even ordinary, you know? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I see...

[42:40]

Well, it all depends how you look at it. You know? I think to feel like what's ordinary is just passé, I think is not right at all. Ordinary... Who said that ordinary was passé or boring or anything? You know, ordinary is just whatever we bring to that. We shouldn't make any assumptions. We shouldn't make any assumptions. And by the way, the Grand Canyon, I was there last year for the first time, but we were in a sub-canyon. We were on one of the rims. I think the... I can't remember which rim. One of the rims, but not in the main Grand Canyon, which is this massive, huge chasm. And it was kind of like canyons leading into the Grand Canyon. But we didn't go to the Grand Canyon. We were in the little canyons.

[43:43]

And I thought, well, this is kind of... You know, this is not that big of a deal, but I know that the Grand Canyon is over there, and that's interesting. It's sort of like the pigeon in the sky. You know? Well, I can imagine. This Grand Canyon must really be grand. But this is pretty good. This is all right. Hey, Karen. Well, Ron, I remember you gave a talk a few years ago about the same subject, ordinary, and how the ordinary is extremely profound. And you gave the example of your mother's death. You talked about how ordinary that was. Yeah, that's right. But how many times does such a thing happen in one's life and how deep it is? So that came to my mind when you asked your question. You can look at the...

[44:48]

So what do you make out of that? Me? Yeah. Well, it is ordinary in that everyone dies. And in some ways, it's not a big deal. It's natural. Right. So it's very ordinary. But for us to experience it or to lose one's mother is extremely profound. I mean, what is stronger than the relationship between a person and their mother, however complex it may be? So it's ordinary, but it's not simple or mundane or something to dismiss. Right, that's right. And ordinary needn't be something simple. I think it could be simple, but it's not mundane or something to dismiss. That's right. And there's... yeah, it's true.

[45:53]

I think this is the last one, Susan. Well, yeah, thank you for this, talking this subject. It's great. I mean, really, there are all these extraordinary, miraculous things in our lives at the moment and that our non-dualistic way of looking at things doesn't need to separate between... Well, this is an extraordinary miracle, and this one here is ordinary, but sometimes it's the ordinary mind that we meet, both extraordinary and miraculous and everyday events, but they're all ordinary and they're all miraculous. And there's a poem about the old woman pouring tea for three months to come along the road, and she says, I'll pour tea for those of you who show me your miraculous powers. And they kind of stare at each other and they don't know what to do, and then she says, well, okay,

[46:55]

and then she pours, she says, let this old crone, this cranky old crone show you her miraculous powers, and she pours them three cups of tea. So that's kind of the same, you know. It's a miracle, and it's totally ordinary. You don't have to see the Grand Canyon, but if you see it, that's a miracle too. So you don't need to separate. Well, I would say, I could say it's okay to separate, but hold both together. I mean, they're distinct, different kinds of, we're talking about emotions here, that they're different emotions, but they can be together rather than just this one or this one or this one. So it's not exactly, I don't know how to describe it, but non-duality doesn't mean just sort of blah,

[48:01]

it's just not only setting on this side or this side, which is what we tend to do. Thank you for listening.

[48:16]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ