This is the pure and simple color of true practice, of the true mind of faith, of the true body of faith. It says, in Chinese characters say, ji [...]

[01:12]

transliteration of samadhi, of samadhi. So, it's a concentrated awareness, a samadhi, one-pointed awareness of how the Self is received, and yet how it turns, it pivots, it is employed, and then In another moment, the Self is received and employed, received and employed. So that pivot, the awareness of that turning point, of that crisis of ourself, that's the object of meditation in, you might say Zen meditation, in Buddha's meditation.

[02:14]

So watching the crisis of the Self, the turning of the Self. And... So the proposal of those who use this, appointed this state of awareness as the criterion of sitting meditation of the Buddha, The point here is that by studying the Self and seeing how it is born and used, studying the functioning, studying the origination of the Self and how it functions, studying that Self is the way to understand life's problems. primarily about how to understand life's problems and help people, help all beings with life's problems.

[03:33]

Perhaps you can see now how it's constantly turning, moment by moment, from receiving to the point. And someone asked, is that a capital S or a small s? And... I think it's, I don't capitalize the smallest, we don't, like I say, capitalize Chinese characters. And I don't think they capitalize characters in words and in Sanskrit either. But in the West, there's big self and small self that we could talk about. But as you know, from the early days of the Buddha's teaching, when I taught the teaching of no self, or non-sil. In other words, he was not talking about the self of the Brahmanic schools that existed in India at his time.

[04:36]

He taught non-sil, or taught that things are selfless. But on the other side, things do happen in the sense that You know, there's a self of Amy and there's a self of Don. And we have different selves. And there's a self of the mountain. It's just that the self of Amy, by which Amy is to be Amy, is not an independent self. It's a self that's received. And it's received when everything comes forward where she, at a certain place at a certain time, when everything comes forward, there is an aim. And the way everything comes forward is the self of aim. But the self of aim is nothing in addition to all the things that come forward.

[05:42]

However, human beings, part of the way they're composed, is that they imagine that they are something in addition to all the things that support them. we have this idea that the sum is greater than, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Or, and then one step more than that is the sum of the parts, the whole which is the sum of the parts, is something in addition to the sum of the parts. That's a metaphysical self, a self which is, almost independent of the sound of the parts. So that self is the self which the Buddha taught you can never find. And also Buddha pointed out that believing in that self is a key ingredient in our distress.

[06:50]

But we're not saying that it isn't the appearance of the self, just that there's an appearance of a self in the advent of all things. So you're watching all things come forward, and then there's a like self, a particular life form, a particular life form, different from other life forms, but totally interdependent life forms. And then, to witness that and act from there, is enlightenment. So that means you're meditating on this meditation state, this path of enlightenment. And the other way, to imagine if there's a self, and then the self comes forward and gives life to things.

[07:51]

The self does this, and the self does that. That's the normal human delusion. Once again, even if you see things that way, like here's the self, and now the self's going to act on the world, the self's going to practice Buddhism or some other wholesome activity in this world, so the self's not going to come forward and act and practice with the world. That's the human perspective of delusion. Not just human, but... Other beings, besides humans, have that perspective. As you'll see in a little while, I'll tell you a story. So, many of you can see that perspective of the human coming forward, of the human imagining herself coming forward and asking a question.

[08:53]

practicing the meditation. There's a turning point there. There's a place where it turns from the person going forward to practice all things to turn around and see all things coming forward to practicing the person. And that pivot is the pivot, the turn, the illusion to enlightenment. And that crisis or that pivot is there all the time. Every time you see yourself separate from your environment and going forward to do something in relationship to it. At that point, it could turn any time to, you know, it's not I'm going forward to practice and confirm the environment. This environment is coming forward and practicing and confirming and giving birth to me. So that pivot from delusion to enlightenment can happen. But then it could turn again back to I'm at the only environment. and then turn again to the environments giving birth to me.

[09:59]

And then turn again, I'm acting on you, I'm giving you the good environment, I'm working with the good environment. And then turn again, back to the environments, working on me and making me. The self is right there in the middle of delusion and enlightenment. It realizes delusion, it realizes enlightenment, and actually it's turning all the time. And this is stuck in enlightenment or enlightenment. So, there is basic meditation. Just propose it and recommend it. Um... Is it the self that we think is independent? When you stop believing that it's suffering, it's still there.

[11:04]

And that's how it will be here in the world. That leads you to know. You have a person who's not been created under any causes and conditions. And that person could give up the belief that she's independent of the causes and conditions. which prepared for her. But the person who's still, perhaps at that moment, the person who is created, who comes to be at that moment, when that person has a cognitive life, and she's been believing in the self. Well, no. But the person's still there, and each person's different, and the way each person's different innocence is their self. But none of the selves are independent of any of the other selves. So the expression gives us expression.

[12:07]

We don't say there's no house, we just say there's no gold house. There is a person, it's just not an independent person. There is a self, an independent self. There's a self that's born to interdependence. There's not a self that's already here. There's not an a priori self. There's not a physical self. There's not a self in addition to the universe. But people actually think that. Of course, if you ask them, they say, of course I'm not in addition to the universe. So whenever I say to people, there's a universe plus something, everybody knows more what I'm talking about. But they don't think there's a universe plus other people. They just think there's a universe plus of all? Why? Somehow, strangely, it's the universe plus me. What?

[13:08]

How come me? How come not you? It's always the universe plus the person. Not always, but if they think there's something in this universe, the thing is, it's not their neighbor. It's not their dog. The dog may be the favorite. Their favorite thing in the universe, but they know their dog lives somewhere in the universe. But they think they're even dishing to it. And all of this thing is us. Even though we know that you think it is somehow. But sometimes we can come into a room and count all the people in the room. I forget that something that's missing all of us that miss them. Remember, oh, I'm here too.

[14:09]

Other times you walk in a room, I'm here, and then I walk in a room. So they start counting me. So the story I wanted to bring up, which is kind of a big topic to bring up, It's a story of turning, and the story's called Baijong's Wild Fox. It's one of the Zen animal stories. We have animal stories in Zen. Foxes, dragons, turtles, snakes, buffalo, buffalo. Rabbits. Rabbit. Rabbit. Rabbits. Warthogs.

[15:09]

Brownhogs. Hedgehogs. Hedgehogs. Cats. Dogs, of course. Actually, in one of the most used Zen texts in Japan, that was called the Momonkan, The first story is a dog story, and the second story is a fox story. And the first story about the dog, in some sense, is a story about the kind of training which initiates you into the second story. It's the kind of training we've been talking about in terms of, in the scene, there's just the scene. In the herd, there's just the... So it's a story about a monk asking, Jaojo, does a dog have Buddha nature? And Jaojo says, no. So does a dog have Buddha nature or not have?

[16:15]

And he says, not have, or no. So that no, one of the first ways you can use that no, is that when you hear something, you say no. Which means, you don't do anything in addition to hearing it. You say no to any comment on it. When you feel something, you say no to any kind of interpretation. In that way, you're initiated into this awareness. In the next case, there's a story about Bajan, So this is a Zen master who lives on a mountain called Baijong. And so he's called Baijong after the mountain he lives on. Bai means a hundred and jang means a measure of distance. So it's a mountain which is called a hundred yards or a hundred degrees or something.

[17:23]

So it's a mountain named after its height. So he, the Zen master, Chinese Zen master, is living on this mountain and he gives talks to the monks who lived there. And every time he gives a talk, an old man comes and sits behind the monks in the hall. And one day, usually when the monks retire, an old man retires too. One day the monks leave, but the old man doesn't leave. And Bhaijama says, who is this before me? And the old man says, it's not a human being, or I'm not a human being.

[18:25]

I, a long time ago, looked in another eon, I lived on this same mountain, and I was the head monk here. I was the master of this mountain. And a monk asked me, a student asked me, does a greatly cultivated person fall into cause and effect, or no? And I said, does not fall on the cause of the fall. And I wrote those characters up in the board. The one on the left is not, the next character means fall, the next character means cause, and the next character means fruit or effect. So that when that old man who's not a human in a previous life was teaching

[19:35]

And he was asked, does a greatly cultivated person fall into cause and effect or not? He says, does not fall into cause and effect. And because I said no, I fell into the life, into the... I was reborn as a fox. 500 lifetimes. And then a man said to Bajon, please, Master, give me a turning word to release me from these transmigrations as us. And Bajon said, well, ask me the question. The old man says, does a greatly complicated person fall into cause and effect?

[20:37]

And Bajan said, does not obscure cause and effect. So he said the same thing back, but changed the word fall into the word obscure, blind. He turned one word into another, and when he turned the words, the old man was released. the old man was greatly enlightened, actually, and then released. And he asked Bajjan, he said to Bajjan, later you will find the body of a fox over behind the monk, over behind the temple.

[21:42]

Please do a funeral ceremony for the fox. Give the fox a monk's funeral. And Bajjan did. And that night, he explained There was nobody else there during this conversation. So the monks thought it was probably very strange that they were going out and doing a funeral with the fox. But that night they explained the story. And one of the young monks came forward and said, What if that monk had given the right answer? What if the old man, what if that teacher had given the correct answer? Then what? And Bajan said to Wang Bo, come closer. And Wang Bo came closer. And before Bajan could say anything to him, Wang Bo slapped the teacher. And Bajan said, I've heard that the barbarian had a red beard.

[22:52]

Now I see another red bearded barbarian here. In other words, you could say, I heard that the great master Bodhidharma had a red beard, but now I see another Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma of the great ancestor. In other words, I've heard that the Zen master had a red beard, now I see another red beard of ancestor. The first point I'm bringing to your attention is that the old man asks for a turning pivot. And then, just by turning that one word in the middle of the universe, it was released. That's the story. And so... This is, uh... It's actually very deep.

[23:53]

This is very deep. all this. So here we have, in one sense, the monk giving, almost the ancient master giving an answer, which is, in some sense, makes sense, because the Buddha taught that because of, even in being a champion, we say, although our karmic hindrances have greatly accumulated, May the Buddhas, through their compassion, relieve us of karmic humans. Can you say something like that? What did you say? Although our past people can't be accumulated, may the Buddhas...

[25:00]

Allowing us to practice the way without hindrance. So here's this man who had this, he just asked about karma. He said, you know, does a great and cultivated person fall in the cause? In fact, he said, no. So that seemed to create the big karmic hindrance for him, and he said, no. So then he goes to the Buddhist ancestors and asked them to ask the the Zen master to free him from calming effects, and the Zen master says this, and does free him from calming effects, so I can read them while man is then able to part this away without hindrance. So according to that, it sounds like it was reasonable what the monk said. But in the story, it's a wrong answer.

[26:01]

And what's the right answer? Well, the right answer is a turning of the wrong answer. But the wrong answer... But then, when the right answer was a turning of the wrong answer, then the old man was freed of karmic... ...indurance. So he got freed of karmic hindrance. and became greatly enlightened. But then after he was greatly enlightened, was he afraid of karmic illness? Or was he just not blind to karmic illness? Or had gotten just not blind to causing a crime? The main thing to be free of is actually karmic ignorance. The main thing to be free of is our habitual tradition.

[27:10]

So if you're greatly cultivated, does that mean you don't fall into cause and effect anymore? Or does it mean, yes, you do fall into cause and effect? Because the wrong answer is sinning. don't fall into causing effect. So you do kind of fall into causing effect. Or you're not falling into causing effect, but you just live in causing effect. And you see causing effect in an unobscured way. It sounds like Bajan's answer is that He doesn't say that the person who doesn't fall into causing effect, but he also doesn't say the person who does fall into causing effect. But he must be somewhere in the neighborhood of causing effect, because he does not obscure causing effect.

[28:16]

He's not blind to causing effect. He knows there's cause and effect. He knows about it. He sees it. He's not blind to it. He's not denying it. So he's free, he's attained peace, he's attained freedom, and he sees cause and effect. So it sounds like in this case, one interpretation would be the greatly cultivated person. He's free, and he's meditating on cause and effect. And to add some more to the picture, the Zen teacher Dogen talks about his story in two different classicals of his Treasuring of True Dharma Eyes. And the first time he talks about it, in a classical called Great Practice, he interprets the story from a non-dual perspective, and non-dual in case of

[29:29]

in terms of the non-duality of falling into causing effect, excuse me, the non-duality of not falling into causing effect, and not obscuring causing effect. The first time he talks about this story, he interprets it from the point of view of these two answers are non-dual. Second time he deals with the story, later in his life, he only deals with it in terms of the second line. He doesn't say that the second line, the turning words, is non-dual with the original statement that got the monk in trouble. who says the second line is really the only line that's in... Bajan's right answer is the only right answer.

[30:35]

The first answer is not right. The second answer is right. And the non-duality between the two lines is not the point. The point is the second line. And that facet, and that facet is called deep faith in cause and effect. When I'm talking about the first line, I think, how come he got in trouble for saying that? Because here's Dogen in this passage, in his verse, saying, May all Buddhists free us from karmic effect. That sounds like that. But he's also saying that because of karma, we have karmic hindrances. So, the part of deep faith and cause and effect, in some sense, is deep faith in the teaching,

[31:38]

that there are karmic hindrances, that there can be karmic hindrances. Deep faith in the teaching of the Buddha, which is, every action has a consequence. So how can we have freedom? But during this retreat, I'm suggesting that the freedom is in the turning. So if I say, not falling cause and effect, that better turn. But if it doesn't turn, then it does turn. And the way it turns is, I get reborn as a wild fox.

[32:41]

Until, somehow, what I said in turn. And I better be looking at cause and effect. And I better look at what I say about cause and effect. I better look at how I'm involved in cause and effect. I better be aware of my intentions moment by moment. How my experience is a conditioning, and how the conditioning is dependent on past conditioning, and how that leads to future conditioning. I'd better be looking at this, and also looking at this looking for the opportunity, returning. And in one sense of deep faith and cause and effect is deep faith that that's what I should be looking at.

[33:50]

And I should be considering this story as part... as a possible resource in my contemplation, in my contemplation of cause and effect, as a resource in my deep faith that it's good to look at causing effect. Yes? If one is meditating about cause and effect, is that different from discursive thought? Is causing effect different from discursive thought? Meditating about Thinking about cause and effect. Thinking about cause and effect is discursive thought. It is? Yes. So, again, if you look at, as I mentioned just a moment ago, this one particular colon collection, the first colon, in some sense, is suggesting you love discursive thought.

[35:00]

So the first colon has kind of led an initiation into the second colon. And the second column, in some sense, protects you from a shallow understanding of what you learn, actually, from the first exercise. So you could even carry the first exercise to the point of the whole story, of the Buddha interacting around the teaching of him seeing as just a scene, up to the point where the Buddha says, and it will be not here, or there, or in between, and that will be the end of suffering. The whole story could be understood as parallel to the Mu column, the column about the dog, the first column.

[36:03]

where you're using the giving up discursive thought at the beginning of the exercise. Then, by giving it up, you see that you don't identify or disidentify with things. And you have insight about not being accepted for things. And you're relieved. But you can have a shallow understanding of that. So the second colon brings in some complexity that's involved in the first colon. But the first colon is starting off by giving up the script of thought. The second colon is not saying anything about giving up the script of thought. Although you should be calm when practicing the first colon, the first story, so that you can calmly contemplate causing effect. The third thing I said this morning was, if we don't give up wandering thoughts, we miss the body leaping.

[37:21]

So again, the first column about this, you know, no, no, no, or just, just, just, training into simplicity and purity, pure presence, That's the practice of giving up wandering thoughts. And then giving up wandering thoughts, you can discover the body that's leaping. And one of the places it's leaping is it's leaping beyond identification and disidentification. Or you could say it's leaping from here to there. It's from there to here. And it's leaping back and forth so often that you... really don't find here or there or in between. So giving up discursive thought is giving up wandering thoughts, you enter into the leaping on the Buddha way, the leaping, the body leaping on the path of freedom.

[38:29]

And in that path you can use discursive thought again, to examine cause and effect. And leap. While you reactivate wandering thoughts, except now they're not just wandering, they're being applied to study. But by giving up discursive thought, you make your body ready to turn and leap. So when you resume discursive thought, you can say, perhaps you can say, it does not fall into cause and effect. So here I go to 500 lives as a fox. It's going to be so much fun. And I'm going to be able to, in 500 lives, have a talk with Bhaja. But it's possible, maybe you could say, the monk says to you, Does a greatly enlightened person, a greatly cultivated person fall into cause and effect?

[39:39]

And you say, does not fall into cause and effect. Just kidding. That was a close one. Just kidding. Just kidding. Do I have to go now? Or did I catch myself quickly enough? What myself? Did myself? get implied faster. If not, here we go. But in the story, even a big mistake like that of saying, does not fall in cause and effect, does not fall in cause and effect, and I'm not kidding. Even a big mistake like that, still, you get another chance. And foxes don't live that long, so... You can say, 500 lights is a fruit fly.

[40:44]

Probably wouldn't be better at all. I'd be like tomorrow. Yes. An important point is, as soon as you say something, you're ready to give it up. I don't understand. You say we have to determine itself how people are reborn as foxes. Well, rebirth happens through cause and effect. That's what happens. I mean, if there's no permanent, it sounds like you're saying there's a soul. You're saying there's a soul? I didn't say that. That sounds like it to me.

[41:47]

What's being reborn? Yeah, what's being reborn? A particular person. Like in Tibetan Buddhism, it seems like, you know, the Pali Lama, this particular person is being reborn. And I don't understand how to understand that in relation to no permanence. Well, like, right now, here you are, a person, and then a while ago there was a person, and they're both called Donnie. So there's a... There's a causal relationship between this dharma and past dharma. Do you think that dharma is permanent? No. But there's a causal relationship between you and past dharma.

[42:53]

Like we say you're related to a woman named dharma who is gone. I have an understanding of it, but I'm not sure if I'm understanding it in the same way that... This tradition is understanding. Do you see the impermanence of Donna in that way? To some extent, that's a good place to start, because you can see that you're impermanent, and yet there's some relationship between you and past Donna, and you're gone. But the past donors don't come up to today. All the past donors are gone. They're not here. They didn't come over to this moment. Those donors get reborn. So people say that they get reborn. So now this donor here got reborn from a donor a moment ago. But it's not the same donor.

[43:55]

So that's one principle they're talking about. Any problems with that? I mean, that's sort of my understanding, but I just want to... I was checking to see if... I was missing anything. Because they have a story about... And also the Donna that's here right now, the reason she's reborn is that she's not reborn just from the past Donna. The present Donna is born in the advent of all things. That's how she's born. One of the things that's coming forth now is the condition of that there was a previous dawn. That's one of the conditions that makes you a previous dawn, and a lot of previous dawns, but some are important conditions. And part of the reason why they're important is they're easy to see. You're built to be aware of them easily.

[44:58]

whereas some of the other conditions are not necessarily built to be aware of. But still, we can accept that they're important anyway. So the dawn that's born is an interdependent dawn, which is nothing in addition to the conditions. This dawn is nothing in addition to the conditions. or past done, but wasn't anything in addition to the conditions. So, what's reborn is a causal nexus, a causal network is reborn. And it's reborn in a different form, but in relationship to a past causal So it isn't that... So one meaning of soul that people might use is... they might say it's a substantial part of the person, but another meaning of soul could be the interdependent, the interdependent quality, or the dependent core rising, the dependently core risen person, or the dependent core rising.

[46:29]

the dependent co-arisen quality of the person, we call that the soul. That soul we do have. We do have a dependent co-arisen nature. And actually, if you look at what they mean by soul in the Bible, in some translations, it says that the soul is the animating principle of the person. So we've got a person like dharma, but the animating principle of dharma is dependent co-arising. All the conditions that come together to make you alive, That's the soul. So the soul, as sometimes is used in the New Testament, sounds to me like what we call the pennecology, I think. Clear dependence. And that's impermanent, of course. There's a flash, a flash of being, and it's gone. But that flash of being has consequences.

[47:30]

which set stage for conditions to come together again. And it isn't that every time a person flashes into existence and flashes out that they will be reborn. It doesn't mean that always a person will be reborn. When the Buddha said that there's rebirth, he didn't say that every living being will be reborn. I never heard him say that. He just said that There is rebirth means that sometimes living beings are reborn, quite frequently. And he's one of them that was reborn many times, and he saw how he was, and he saw how he evolved to his state of good understanding. So sometimes the case is that the conditions come together to make a being, a person, those conditions disappear, and the person disappears, and you don't get another person.

[48:39]

You know, who's causally related to that past person. That can happen. But sometimes you do get another person. We've had many daughters during this conversation. And we're quite familiar with that pattern. Like many other times when you don't get another daughter. But you get, sometimes, another person who's causally related to this particular domain. Don't give me stories about, like you say, the Dalai Rama or the Buddha stories of himself. Yes, James? Now, stay for a moment. We set aside taking the story literally.

[49:43]

Okay. Okay, here's this guy walking around the building. He recognizes that he's been a teacher. Look, over and over and over and over again, I've been in situations and I act like a fox. I don't like it. It keeps happening. And finally I figured out that this started when I said something that was wrong. From then on, situations arise, I act like a fox. I hate it. I know that this is when it started. I don't know what was wrong with what I said. I mean, what was wrong? I don't get it. I still think that was right. What does that mean then?

[50:46]

In any case, what would it mean for him to be said? I thought the box. And what's the connection with what he said that was wrong? Yes, that's fine. He could have said something. That's sort of what he meant, I think. I said this thing, and now I've been trying to fix it ever since. After I said this, I've been hooked on this ever since. And I've tried to turn it backwards, forwards, I've tried to change it, I've tried many different versions of it, but I'm just so confused now. that none of the versions... Every time I think of another version or another way to put it, I just... I still feel hooked. And I still don't have the correct understanding, and it's really bugging me. And I can't even be like a normal human anymore.

[51:49]

It's affecting his whole life, apparently. So would you please... Would you please tweak it? And it's possible that the Master... said the same, you know, he may have tried exactly the same thing that the Master said 20 times, a million times. He might have said the same thing, but he said the same thing, you know, after he said a bunch of other stuff. He was so confused that the statement the Master made didn't work on himself. He might have come up with the same thing. Or he might not do. He might not do. You know, he might have said totally a different thing to use, but he might have kept tweaking his original statement. So he had not... But he can't let go of the idea that what he said was right in the first place. Well, he might have... But he knows that he got in trouble as soon as he said it. Well, in a sense, he couldn't let go... He could say what I said was wrong. But he can't let... But he can't get rid of the effect.

[52:53]

of him saying it at the time and thinking that it was true when he said it at the time. When he said it originally, if he thought it was true, you can't get rid of the effect of saying something and thinking it's true. You could later say, I now think that's not true. But I don't know what is true. So it's the truest thing you can think. And that added, that's still being caught by what you said, as an example. I don't know what's true, I'm still in what's true prison. I'm still in that prison. Would you please say something which will free me from the prison of what's true and what's false? It's like this guy, you know, what is it? This guy who said, who wrote a book, I think he was an Englishman, he wrote a book saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. And in Austria, it's against the law to say that the Holocaust didn't happen. But he wrote this book.

[53:54]

A professional historian wrote the book. And later he got some new information that he somehow changed his attitude and retracted his statement that the Holocaust didn't happen. But he, for some reason or another, went back to Austria to visit and put him in prison. So even though he changed his mind, he still went to prison. in Austria. So even if this guy saw, I can see by what happened to me that I gave the wrong answer. It looks to me like, from what I said, I've been trying to get the right answer for a long time, and I'm still basically in the prison of trying to, like... Yeah. I said that the cultivated person was... free of cause and effect, and now I'm totally stuck in cause and effect because I said that somebody could be free of it.

[54:55]

So now, would you help me get out of it? And Bajang gives this answer which says you can't get out of it, but then he got out of it. He says you don't get out of it, and then he got out of it. He got liberated by Bajang saying you can't not following the cause and effect. Did he say that? Huh? What's he just said? Did he say that? He said, well, I must not follow the cause and effect. Say it again. I must have missed it. What did you think I said? I thought you said that, my judge said, does not follow the cause and effect. No, I'm saying that what Bajan said liberated him from cause and effect. Bajan said you can't get out of cause and effect.

[56:02]

He didn't say you can get out of cause and effect. He said that you have to live in cause and effect and not be blind to it. that you can't get out of cause and effect. He said that. And you can't get out of cause and effect, but as he turned that phrase by saying you can't get out of cause and effect by saying you don't steer cause and effect, you got the guy out of cause and effect. That's what I'm not clear about. I think he could not really get any amount of cause and effect by virtue of his original damnation that What I sense from the Quran, I don't know if you know it, is that he became no longer blind to causing a threat, and that was his liberation, rather than actual liberation for causing a threat.

[57:05]

So he's liberated from being blind to it, like he was. He's liberated from being blind to it. That's what I sense. Yes? Is it significant that the character that changed in Vajan's response is the same as the one half of the word samadhi? It's significant in the sense that it's a coincidence. And it's a coincidence right here on this blackboard. But over here, the character is used phonetically. transliterate Chinese, Sanskrit word into Chinese. It's been out of May. That's Sam May, it's in Samadhi. So here's Jesus for its sound, and here's Jesus for its meaning. It's not blind, or does not obscure. No, the meaning is obscure, or blind.

[58:05]

The character is not. So it's not blind, or not obscure. So, yes. Is this like, if I say to you, now, if you see that truck coming, he won't run over you. And you say, ah, great. You stay right where you are unless the truck runs over you. I didn't follow you saying, like what? We're standing in the highway. You see that truck coming, then it won't run over you. You see the truck coming, so it will run over you? It will not run over you, because you see it. So you stand there, where obviously, if you didn't have your head on backwards, you would say, right, I see this truck coming, now get out of the way a minute. And it won't run over me. Any sense, please?

[59:10]

You nodding your head? Oh, I wasn't nodding my head. You see karma coming. Yeah. So it won't affect you. Rather than... Rather than... I see karma coming. I see karma coming. Here it comes. Whoop. No kidding. Yeah, but are you saying that if you see karma coming and you move there, it won't affect you then? Right. No, it will. Well, it'll affect you to the extent that you moved out of the way. Yes. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that did it back to you, though. Yeah. You were caught by a blanket. Yeah, exactly. Just as if you said, ah, okay, I see the truck coming. So if you see the truck coming, you say, because I see the truck coming, it won't hurt me? Because somebody you trusted, you misunderstood. This truck won't hurt me because my teacher said it won't hurt me if I see it coming. Well, the teacher didn't think you were stupid enough not to move out of the road if the truck was coming.

[60:17]

He didn't tell you that you wouldn't be hit by the truck. He said somebody who was greatly enlightened wouldn't be hit by the truck. He told the student he wouldn't be hit by the truck. He was being asked as a sage, right? Rightly or wrong? No, the student was asking, is the sage hit by a truck? The teacher didn't say, you wouldn't get hit by the truck. You're going to get hit by the truck. The student said, would I get hit by a car? And the teacher would have said, yes. You don't get hit by a truck. But the student said, will a great escape artist be hit by a truck? And the dude, thinking he is a great escape artist himself, says, no. Well, he could do that when he thought he was, and he said no. Right. So then he got hit by a truck. Right, yeah. Which he did. And another twist in the story is that he got hit by the truck, and he wanted to get hit by the truck so he could have his story.

[61:20]

Well, you guys will look at it that way, yeah. Yes. So, in a way, Jim, first... post this it seems very like everything that we do like the turning all the time either with one another or even within our own awareness of here's a situation I recognize the karmic frequency of it I can see like where it began perhaps and maybe I can't yet see how to find a way out of it and maybe I in this state of I actually turn it, it turns for me or I come to a teacher or to a peer and something turns it so that this dynamic would happen not only over these 500 great lifetimes but even in the very short lifetimes of a day or an hour.

[62:23]

I didn't follow that. Would you say it again, more slowly? Well, let me try again. I thought in Jim's first bringing this up as... No, I think that's part of the problem. Don't have to go back. Just talking about Jim. Okay. Just talking about yourself. All right. During that part of the conversation, it occurred to me that the structure of this story applies to the turning. right here, not just across many years of life, but even in a period of Zazen, or a minute, or any such occasion, large or small. How does it apply? How does it apply? The way I was imagining it applying is, here's a situation that I can see happening again and again, karmic consequence that re-causes itself, perhaps.

[63:29]

So you say, here's a situation, in other words, you're meditating on your situation, and you're seeing some kind of... An equivalent to being a fox for 500 lifetimes, right. And so, in seeing the source of God, and yet not quite seeing freedom from the source of it, Either sometimes perhaps just in sitting and seeing it, it turns, or in going and speaking to you or to another person about it, this turning can happen. That's all. Or another way to put it is, you can realize the turning. Right. The realization that came to the first Bai Zhang by speaking to the present Bai Zhang, the turning was always there, but the turning that he asked for brought it to his consciousness.

[64:39]

And I also thought of it in relation to the two versions of Dogen's interpretation. Dogen keeps turning the story, so it's not really necessarily a contradiction. He offers two different interpretations. It's not necessarily a contradiction, right? Yes? I've heard a difference in what Jim was saying, that when I'm aware of a truck that's coming, and my awareness keeps me in that spot, I'm not going to be saved, the truck will run me over. But for me, there's a distinction between things that are physical, gross, material reality. But when I hear you talk about karma, it seems not just limited to gross, but it seems to be these patterns. And so when there is an alteration in our consciousness, our awareness, then because karma is constituted by things that are numinal things, let's say, then the awareness of it can change.

[65:47]

If it was a numeral truck that was coming my way, then my awareness of it might save me from that. Not a gross truck, though. I misinterpreted the teaching that you had received. The guy received the teaching from his teacher that if he saw the truck coming down the road, he would get run over by it. What the teacher then was, Obviously, if you see the truck, you're going to get out of the way, so you won't get right over it. So see the truck. But he took it literally without the missing middle term and said, come on, truck. Bring it on. So the mine truck... There's no end to its effect, but it can interact with other mind trucks and switch and change tracks and go in unexpected ways.

[66:56]

Which doesn't stop its effect, it just can switch to another track and go from a disaster to a liberation. It's possible. And so, Yes. May I ask a question related to a captain? Sure. Is there something intrinsic about interacting, the interaction that's key to solving this role in this person's life? Yes, there's something what? Is an interaction with another being necessary? Is it necessary? Just solving some of life's goals, like this one. Yes. None of this stuff happens, none of these transformations, nothing happens by one person alone.

[68:06]

So, people who imagine that they're alone, or not, with the imagination that they're alone, has consequence. Imagination that you're not alone has consequence too. But even when you find yourself slipping into karmic opinions, you're not alone either. It's just that you aren't aware that you're not alone. You think you're there acting upon the world. You don't realize you're with everybody. And that's where your actions come from. When you do realize that you're with everybody in your activity, well then, there is somebody there. And now you know it. But there always was somebody there. So these positive transformations are never done by one person alone. And you realize, therefore, they are positive.

[69:11]

negative transformations are never done by one alone. But you think they are done by yourself alone. And so, probably this month, when he was asked the question, and he said, does not cause an effect, does not phone cause an effect, he probably probably said that by himself. He probably didn't realize that we were helping him. Those who would hear this story later, or assisting him in getting that answer. And if he had known we were helping him, it wouldn't have the same effect. Because he would have been thinking differently, as he was saying, does not follow the causal effect. It would have had a different causal pattern, you would have had a different result. You might have only had one-and-a-half lenses or such. So this way of talking is, maybe this is in according to a deep faith in causal effect, meaning that, yeah, that we're meditating on causal effect, we're meditating on causal, we're meditating on causation.

[70:29]

So meditating on causation, and especially karmic causation, is now, by this discussion, highly recommended. Yes. I feel like that. This is kind of a trap I keep falling into with meditation is. Okay, I conceptually get the fact that it's not me and then the universe. So I conceptually get that, okay, it's just the universe. But I think that when I understand things, focus that You know, look, it's the universe. And then Buddha, he's outside somehow. He's stuck inside. [...]

[71:31]

He's stuck inside. [...] me and then the universe, I'll somehow sidestep all of the cause and effect. It seems like that's what the story, what was happening in the story, is that he was imagining that an accomplished, cultivated person would somehow sidestep the universe and then be separate from the universe. That's it. He just steps out. So, but you also feel that way, like, you understand that you're not in addition to the universe? Conceptually. But then you think, if you really understood that, you wouldn't get to do something from the universe?

[72:32]

Yeah. Because I was just, I'm always holding up, oh, the heck in the universe. But then another possibility is, I understand, I understand conceptually, that I'm not in addition to the universe, of course. And if I understood that, why am I really willing to not be self-reliance, and just be living with these turkeys? With no advantage. Living with these other turkeys? I would just... So the bodhisattva is really willing to live, totally immersed in all beings. The human being needs a lot of understanding in order to be willing to do that, in order to be anybody, and with anybody. We need deeper and deeper understanding that we're not in addition to the universe.

[73:38]

But, yeah, so, it sounds like you're saying, this is a subtle recidivist twist, It's resurfacing, acting, of course, you know you're not in this universe, but you think, if I didn't practice how I could overcome it, that's obviously so. But then, I think further than that, then I would be lonely. Up there, sitting on top of the universe, you know, with all those people swimming around, doing that thing together. I don't want to get back in. Some embevelments seem to be about living in the universe. Some embevelments are my pain. Some embevelments are my dignity.

[74:42]

You know, if we did the closing chat now, Matt would have been able to attend to home. With the dream of freedom's way.

[75:38]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_50.75