I love to taste the truth of timeless words. Good evening everybody. If it's strange, well, just sit back and think about something else. And the rest of you too. Follow your breath and think of Buddha or something. So, last time, we, as I recall, we were in the part that says each sense in every field interact and do not interact. When interacting, they also merge, otherwise they remain in their own states. And we had discussed that at some length.

[01:03]

So, I would like to just go over that, review that a little bit and then go on for a couple more lines and then open it up for discussion. Just maybe for the benefit of the newcomers, but also to remind us as well of what this is all about and where this is at. Remember, this is the saṅdhokai, the unity, the merging of difference, differentiation and unity. Differentiation and unity are two different views of the world. Differentiation is everything is different, recognizing differences. Unity is the understanding, the insight that all things are actually of one substance, one are one. Differences are not real.

[02:12]

These are two seemingly opposite points of view and they both have to be honored and incorporated into our understanding and into our living. And there is a dialectic between them. And that's what this poem is all about. So now, these lines are about that and in particular, they're talking about relationship in actual process of perception between differentiation and unity. How our perception works and how our mind works in relation to the world, sometimes appearing as different and sometimes appearing as the same. So I gave last time Suzuki Roshi's translation of this, these lines, which goes, our five senses and the objective world

[03:19]

are interdependent and independent. And this interdependence goes everywhere and it also stays in its own place. So remember, I told you that he thought the part about each sense in every field, he said that's just rhetoric, that's just not important. It's all about just the relationship between our mind and the world. And the translation that I gave, and I actually redid it, because the Chinese text does talk about the sense gates, the six sense gates. This is a fairly literal translation from the Chinese. It doesn't say six, it says the sense gates, the sense gates and their objects. So each sense gate has a different object, the eye,

[04:23]

the object of the eye sense gate is form, the object of the ear sense gate is sound, et cetera, et cetera. The sense gates and their objects completely turn each other. You can imagine, the eye and what is out there completely react to each other and turn each other, are relative to each other, are dependent on each other. So as far as we're concerned, what we see is just as much relative to the eye as to the thing that we think we're seeing. These things interact with each other. So the sense gates and their objects completely turn each other and do not turn each other. When they turn each other, they're mutually created. When they don't turn each other, each remains in its own place. So this is bringing up the two sides of interdependence and independence are very much like

[05:28]

differentiation and unity. In the case of the aspect, from the standpoint of the interaction between our senses and that which we apprehend, the two are mutually co-created. They're one thing, really. There's no separation between our senses and that which is perceived. The world is unitary in that sense, co-created by us. Our senses are created by the world, the world is created by our senses. There's this dynamic interplay. We can't really separate them, and yet at the same time, they're totally separate, totally independent. That's what these lines are saying. And last time, I quoted from, if you remember, from Hesogin Glassman's commentary on this text

[06:28]

where he quotes a line from Genjo Koan about the moon. The enlightenment is like the moon reflected in water. Remember that? The water does not get wet, the water does not get broken. The moon does not get wet and the water does not get broken. The moon is reflected in a drop of water completely. The water is not crushed by the moon, nor is the moon diminished in any way by the drop of water. He quotes those lines as a commentary to that. So, the previous part was talking about... What was it talking about? The previous lines said the spiritual source is bright and pure, branching streams flow in the darkness. Attachment to things is basically delusion

[07:33]

merging with principle. It's still not enlightenment. So these were also expressions of the spiritual source. The oneness of all things is in the brightness. The brightness is differentiation, right? So here the oneness is in the brightness. Differentiation is also in the darkness. When there is attachment to differentiation, there is confusion, there is delusion. And yet, sticking to oneness is not enlightenment. So that's a general statement about reality. And now there's this statement we just discussed about the senses and the literal relation to our world on a sensory level. And then the next part discusses this further.

[08:37]

Now, analyzing further and talking further about our relationship to the material world in terms of our senses. Not only the material world, but the material world and also the inner world in terms of our six senses. And how that relates to our understanding of what it is that we're apprehending with our senses. So the next part says, forms basically differ in material and appearance. Forms meaning physical things. Physical things differ in the material that they're made out of and in the way they appear. Sounds basically differ as pleasant or harsh. This is my translation. In darkness, the designations extraordinary and ordinary collapse into each other.

[09:39]

In brightness, the designations pure and defiled are distinguished. And we usually translate that as forms are basically different in material and appearance. Sounds are fundamentally different in pleasant or harsh quality. Darkness is a word for emerging upper and lower light, is an expression for distinguishing pure and defiled. And here Master Shen Yen translates it, from original form comes shapes and images. From primal sound comes pleasures and pains. In obscurity, words of the high and middle paths are in accord. In lucidity, expressions of purity and muddiness are apparent. This one says, forms vary in shape. Taz is a very minimalist, he likes to translate minimalist style. Forms vary in shape, sounds vary in tone,

[10:44]

darkness blends higher and lower, brightness separates clear and murky. So, only forms and sounds are mentioned, but this would be the same for the other senses as well. In other words, when there is a sensory event, there is difference and distinction. Without difference and distinction, there is no sensory event. That's the nature of a sensory event, is that there is a distinction. There is this person there and that person there, there is this shape and that shape. Without distinction, there is no perception. In the case of all the perceptions, there is distinction. With each one, there are different kinds of distinctions made. In visual perception, you have shape, you have color.

[11:45]

In sound, you have high sound, low sound, pleasant sound, unpleasant sound, and so forth. The distinctions between things are different with each sense, but whenever there is a sensory occasion, there is always distinction. This can lead you to feel as if it's saying that the distinction is in the thing itself, it's in the form or it's in the sound. But I don't think it really means that. It means that in the event of our apprehending a form and a sound, there are distinctions. Does that make sense? Remember, darkness, in this poem, generally means unity, non-differentiation. Just like in the dark, I gave the example, in the dark you can't see anything. When you turn the lights out in here, all of a sudden, all the people disappear. It's dark in here, we can't see anything.

[12:47]

So in the darkness, just like that, in the darkness, everything is one. There's nothing. It's all a unity. In the light, you see distinctions. So, in darkness, the designations extraordinary and ordinary, but that stands for any designations, could be anything. In the darkness, any designations collapse into each other. Just like now I'm sitting here, I see John, I see Judith, I see Kevin. Turn the lights out, it's wiped out. There is no distinction between anybody. So in the darkness, designations... That's why the other translations use the term words, because the character means words. But the idea is that designations, words to describe things, to differentiate them, differentiations themselves, which are concepts in the mind, collapse into each other in the darkness.

[13:52]

In the brightness, they hold. Pure and defile or any other designations are distinguished in the brightness. So that's what it's saying. In the darkness, all of our conceptual designations disappear. In the darkness, they disappear. In the brightness, they appear again. So there's those two aspects. This has to do with our understanding of what we perceive. So I think what the Sandokai is asking us to notice here is that even though our perceptions show us a world of differentiation, we need to understand by the agency of our practice that that is only an aspect of how things are. In other words, if we totally believe in the differentiation and forget that also there is that aspect of things

[14:53]

which are not differentiated but which are at the same time one and the same, that understanding will change the way we live and change the way we look at things. Now let me read you Suzuki Roshi's commentary, a little piece of his commentary on this point, which I think is wonderfully clear, it seems to me, and really shows us how this is practical and how we would actually work with this or live with this. So he says in his commentary, We understand in two ways. One way is to understand things in darkness. And the other is to observe things in terms of good and bad. See, that's in the light. In the light, we make judgments and distinctions. In the darkness, you see, we just observe the darkness. So one way is to understand things in darkness, and the other is to observe things in terms of good and bad.

[15:56]

There are two ways of understanding. And we know that. Things themselves are not good and bad. It is we people who discriminate, calling things good and bad. There is no good and bad in things themselves. But we create, or we discriminate, in terms of good or bad. And if we know this, we will not suffer so much. And then he's sort of imitating somebody thinking, Oh, that is what I am doing. Things themselves have no good or bad nature. We are still doing it, you see. I am doing that. I am not not doing it. I am doing it. But I understand that that is what I am doing. Things themselves have no good or bad nature.

[16:58]

To understand in this way is to understand things in utter darkness. Then you are not involved in the dualistic understanding of good or bad. So you see, this is a very subtle and important point, because it would not be possible for us to cease our discriminating mind. Because the very act of perception, of being alive, is already an act of discrimination, because perception also includes thinking itself. So we cannot stop being creatures who will see differences. We would not want to stop doing that. That is what life is all about. But if we understand that those discriminations, particularly on the level of judgment, that those discriminations are something that we are doing, because of the karma of our life, if we keep that in mind, then when we make those discriminations,

[17:59]

as we will continue to do throughout our lifetimes, we will not be quite so caught by them. Oh, I'm mad at her, you see. But I know that it's not her, it's my activity that I'm dealing with now. So I'm still mad. But it's different when I know, you see, that this is my activity, my responsibility. It reminds me, now that I'm talking about it here, of Deng Xian's line that I quoted some weeks ago in the Dharma talk, when Deng Xian said, Well, how can I show my understanding of your teaching? He says to his teacher. And the teacher says, Just this person. Just take full responsibility. So this is something I am doing. Just like Sutra says, this is something I am doing. When we know that, and we don't think it's in the situation, out there, then it changes the way that we react to the discriminations that we make.

[19:02]

So it's a very important point. Two ways of understanding, two ways of seeing things, and both must be honored, but at all times, and the poem is going to go on from here to discuss this at greater length, the dialectic between these two sides. So I'm going to do one more part. And after that, I'm sure you have comments and stuff like that. So let's see, let's just do one part. So the next part is the part that we usually translate as, The four gross elements return to their own natures like a baby taking to its mother. Fire heats, wind moves, water wets, earth is solid. Eye and form, ear and sound, nose and smell, tongue and taste, thus in all things, the leaves spread from the root, the whole process must return to the source. That's what we usually say. And you can see that this is very similar, this part, to the previous part.

[20:06]

This is further analysis of perception and matter, and the relationship of that to the understanding of the unity of difference, the merging of difference and oneness. Let me give you another translation of those same lines. The four great elements have their own nature, just as a child its mother. Fire heats, air moves, water wets, earth is solid. Eyes perceive form, ears perceive sound, a nose responds to odor, a tongue to taste. The root of each function generates branches and leaves. A river and its tributaries return to ocean. That's how Cass translates it. Maybe that's enough, I'll confuse it by giving you more translations.

[21:13]

So, I translate it this way. The four great elements return to their natures as a child to its mother. Fire heats, wind moves, water wets, earth makes solid. Eye and form, ear and sound, nose and smell, tongue and taste. The Dharma is the one root of each thing. It unfolds and differentiates like leaves opening. The whole process must return to its essence. So this is actually, on one level, referring to the four great elements returning to their own natures actually refers to the dying process. Because in Buddhist physics,

[22:17]

there's four elements, sometimes they say there's five elements, but in this particular case, there's four elements. And it's very sophisticated, actually, because the elements are not physical elements, the elements are qualities of energy within physical matter. So there's four kind of moves that physical matter makes, and all four of them are always present in every piece of physical matter in different quantities. So water has more of the water element in it than a table, although a table does have the water element in it, and so on. So the four elements are fire, wind, water, and earth. Fire heats, or creates movement, or warmth, I mean. Fire heats, so the quality of warmth or heat in a physical matter. Wind moves, the quality of movement,

[23:20]

like the molecules and atoms spinning around within matter. Water wets, the quality of fluidity, and earth makes solid, the quality of solidity or firmness. These four qualities are called the four great elements, and all physical matter is made up of them, is what Buddhist physics says. When a person, our body is made up of them too. Anything physical will break down, that is the characteristic of the physical. When they ask to define, we were talking about this in our Abhidharma seminar, what is the definition in Abhidharma of rupa, or stuff? The definition of stuff is that which can be molested or struck somehow. If it can be struck, molested, damaged in some way, it's physical, because volition, thought, consciousness cannot be struck,

[24:28]

touched, damaged, molested, but the physical can. So therefore, everything that's physical will, by and by, eventually disintegrate. And when it disintegrates, including the body, the physical body, the four elements will return, each one to its own nature. Now they're combined into a physical object, but when that physical object breaks down, as the body breaks down, the four gross elements, the four great elements, each one returns to its own nature. Fire returns to fire, water returns to water, and so on. Just like a child naturally goes to its mother, the four elements return to their original natures, which is, in a certain way, a pleasant way of thinking about the dissolution of the body. All the qualities of the body, at the time that the body breaks up, will return to their nature, their basic nature,

[25:29]

just like a child will return to its mother, the natural flow that a child has to go to its mother. Then it says... And also notice that in the previous section, it was talking about the relationship between the senses and the physical world, and saying that the senses and the physical world are dependent on one another, and mutually co-creating, and at the same time independent. The four elements now, as they exist in my body, are totally dependent on one another. You can't distinguish them. But when the body dissolves in death, each element will return to its independent nature, is the idea. When the four elements are combined in matter, they are interdependent. When matter breaks down, they will become, once again, each one independent and separate.

[26:34]

So they interact, and they do not interact. They turn each other, and then sometimes they don't turn each other, just like in the previous stanza. Then it goes on to, again, refer to perception. Eye and form, ear and sound, nose and smell, tongue and taste, the world of differentiation, the world of perception, vast universe, so many different things, it's unbelievable. The different things that there are, we don't even see with our eyes, the incredible vastness of beings and creatures, and I could go on and on. Bacteria, I mean, we only see a certain small number of beings sitting in this room, but actually literally it's true that there's millions and trillions of beings in this room, all the bacteria in our body and so on, the little mites and all kinds of things that are crawling around everywhere in the room. There must be thousands of sub-microscopic creatures in the rug and in our eyebrows and in our hairs.

[27:41]

No, really, we have a book at home where they have pictures of these things. It's unbelievable. Because we think, well, if we can't see them, they must be non-existent. But these things, they have little feelers and they have little claws and all kinds of things, these little sub-microscopic, yeah, there's like mites in your eyebrows and eyelashes and so on. So the differentiation that we see is a tiny part of the actual differentiation that there is in this world that we live in. It's an unbelievable world of multiplicity and differentiation, unbelievable. Oh yeah, the phytoplankton, the phytoplankton in the ocean going in the water. It's a billion times that you can't see them, but I've seen pictures of them. They're so different, one from the other. One looks like a balloon, like a parachute or balloon. Another one looks like a little worm. I mean, they're all totally different. There must be hundreds of thousands of different types of creatures like that that we can't even see.

[28:41]

So all of that, this is the world. And our senses pick up a certain amount of it, but a lot of it they don't pick up without instruments. With instruments, by magnifying, we can see with our senses. But the Dharma is the one root of each thing. They all come from one source, one root, and they unfold from that root like leaves opening up. So you can imagine like a root, like a seed. You plant a seed and the root forms and then the seed opens up and then two leaves come out and then pretty soon another, two more leaves. You can have a gigantic tree. It's coming from this, and that's exactly what happens, doesn't it? From one little tiny seed and one pair of leaves comes a whole process of differentiation and pretty soon you have a gigantic tree with millions of different leaves

[29:43]

and insects living in it and different things. So this is how it goes. The Dharma is the one root of each thing and it unfolds and differentiates like leaves opening. The whole process must return to its essence or to its source. So this is our life, right? The elements combine and they give rise to, you know, taking a human being. The four gross elements combine, they give rise to this being that has consciousness and the sense organs. The sense organs perceive a world of multiplicity and differentiation, all of which is rooted in the one substance that covers everything and then eventually it all returns to the source. It all returns back to oneness, as we do when the four elements of our body break up. The sense organs are no longer there, so the world

[30:46]

of differentiation totally disappears and goes to sleep and we return to peacefulness, we return to the world of darkness, we return to the world of oneness where things are no longer different, where everything is peaceful and without any distinctions. Now I'll give you Suzuki Roshi's translation of these lines and then I will see what's on people's minds. He translates, the characteristics of the four elements draw together like a child returning to its mother. A little different, he's looking at it from the other angle, right? The heat of fire, the moving wind, the water wet and the solid earth. Eyes to see, sounds to hear and smells, the sour and salty taste on the tongue. Because the characters do say sour and salty,

[31:51]

but usually you translate that as taste, because that's how you say, in Chinese that's how you say taste, sour and salty, there's no other word for taste. That means taste, but he translates it literally, which is more colorful. The sour and salty taste on the tongue, but in each related thing, as leaves grow from the root, in the beginning return to the source. So that's Suzuki Roshi's lines. So in this way, you see, oneness and differentiation is not a philosophy. It's actually our life, because the truth is that we come out of absolute undifferentiation, absolute oneness and darkness into a world of light and differentiation and we return to that world of oneness and emptiness, if you want. I think what we're getting at here is the fact that

[32:58]

that's true on every moment. It's true over the course of a lifetime, but also on every moment exactly the same process takes place, so that the multiplicity of the world is available to us on each moment and the oneness of letting go, non-being is also there on each moment. Our job as practitioners is to understand that this is so and loose our grip on the differentiation so that we can more skillfully live within it. That's why earlier, as I quoted to you a moment ago, he says, when we understand this, we can reduce our suffering, because we don't have such a strong grip on the world of differentiation. We appreciate it and we appreciate that the world of oneness at every moment stands behind it, that everything is constantly returning

[34:05]

to this undifferentiated state. So that's those lines. They're very important lines in the Sangha Kai. Now I wonder what you would like to bring up in relation to those lines or anything that you heard. It's pretty easy to see that the four elements are showing to their own nature when you think of death. When you get to the end of your life, it's not the four elements, it's the nature. But the way I understood this before you said death was that it's to do with enlightenment. That the four elements are showing to their own nature, so that solidity is just solidity. There's nothing added. It's not my body. Breath is just breath. So that's air returning to air.

[35:08]

And tying this in then with what you said, it's available at every moment. That would also seem to suggest that it's to do with enlightenment as well. That it's available on a moment-to-moment basis. So in a moment-to-moment way, the four elements return to their own nature. Yes, I think I agree. Enlightenment and letting go of attachment are the same, and so is death. Enlightenment is like dropping dead, right? It's like giving up everything and being content to allow reality to be reality without holding on. Without trying to put things together and hold on. So that's why the same lines absolutely bear both those interpretations.

[36:11]

And like I've said before, I don't know if I've said it in this class, but in the symbolism of a Buddhist funeral, exactly this is enacted. Because you enact the person who's passed away as the Dharmakaya body of Buddha, as the highest enlightenment. Having entered this space, they are our teacher, and we are in awe of their return to this state that is the quality of every moment, but that only a great enlightened Buddha can truly enter into. And insofar as we have a taste for it or some appreciation of it in our lifetime, we also have an appreciation for death and letting go. So you see, the two are not at all different. And in the literature on, say, rebirth and so on in Buddhism, over and over again, even the ancient texts, it's reiterated that the idea of transmigrating from life to life

[37:17]

is no different from the transmigration that takes place on each moment. So it's just like you're saying. Question. In darkness, you were talking about the sense vision. I couldn't see anything, but you didn't mention anything about the other senses. You might not be able to see something, but you can hear or you can smell a difference, distinctions, and so that wasn't brought up at all, so there still is. No. Well, here, darkness is just a metaphor. In other words, the idea is that there's no differentiation. So I was using that metaphor to say why darkness stands for non-differentiation. But, of course, if you analyze the metaphor more, you say, well, that's not a very good metaphor to describe what they're meaning here. And you're right, it is not a perfect metaphor. It's just a term that they use. But what the term is referring to is absolutely no differentiation of sight or any senses.

[38:18]

It doesn't exist. There's just purely a state of oneness and emptiness and so on. Which, of course, you see, the whole point of this poem is that there is no such thing as that, apart from the world differentiation. There's no place over there, like later on, you and I will go over there, where it's completely nothing. Right now, we're over here, where there's lots going on. We can go to a party, but over there, later on, when we go there, it's going to be this other place where nothing will be going on. The whole point of this poem is that there's no place over there. This is one place. And what we need to understand is that this place, which is the only place there is, has that aspect. And that the part of this place that we see and that we're operating around with our senses and our minds, does not contain the whole place. It's only our view of the place. And why we get into trouble is that we only see

[39:21]

this limited view of the place that we're in, and we don't appreciate the full view of that place, and therefore we go crashing around doing dumb things. It's like thinking you're in Los Angeles when you're really in Prague. You're going around saying, where's the movies? And everybody's saying, what? You see what I mean? You're acting like it's one place, and it's a totally different place, and so you get into trouble. You don't know the customs of the place unless you see the place as it really is, because it's one place. What else? A lot of Buddhist texts, especially the early Buddhism, talk about discrimination as if that was the problem. And the fact that to be perceived is to discriminate, like you were saying, and then there's this kind of effort, it seems like, to block off all the different gates and return to oneness, as if you could actually get away from that. Like Nirvana is this dark place somewhere. But, I don't know, some of the stuff I've been reading lately, it's talking more about discrimination

[40:24]

is not the problem, it's the hierarchy of values that we assign to the different things. Good and bad, or black and white. In our culture, it seems like we try to get rid of racism by ignoring the differences, and that's going to take care of it, when in fact it's the valuation that we assign. So it's like that. That's the problem, right? It's not so much discrimination. Certainly, reading the texts of the older schools of Buddhism, you could get the impression that they are advocating eliminating discrimination. But I don't think that they really are. And certainly when you study later texts, the Mahayana texts and so on, it becomes clearer that the issue is not whether or not there's discrimination, but our relation to that discrimination, our understanding. And that's what I think this poem is saying, that when there will be perception, there will be discrimination, but how do we understand that discrimination? Can we appreciate, by virtue of our practice,

[41:27]

and stand within that discrimination in a more full and accurate way, and not be caught by it, swept up by it? And I think for us, we often discuss in our family here, our Dharma family, the issue of judgment and so on, because that's... See, when there's discrimination, then instantly, this is how the mind works, you know, as soon as there's discrimination, there's instantly judgment. And the judgment becomes a terrible problem, a terrible problem for us, in terms of our living. Because right away, as soon as I see there's him and there's her, then I think, oh, he's nice, I don't like her, or whatever. Very quickly we have that kind of discrimination. And then we begin acting on those judgments and making great difficulties. So we can have the discrimination if we can see the oneness at the same time, and understand that the discriminations that we have and that we see

[42:31]

are only coming from our limited viewpoint, and that there's more to these things than that. Like every person we meet, for example, is a vast mystery. I mean, that's the truth. We have no idea the depth of any human being that we meet. And they may appear to us in a particular way that we like or that we don't like, but if that's the entire measure of who that person is, we think, then of course we don't respect them, we do this to them, we do that to them, then they do this and that to us, and pretty soon we have a mess. But if we appreciate, well, this person who appears to me in such and such a way is actually a vast universe of mystery and oneness with myself and with all things, we have some appreciation of that. In our actual moments of relating to that person, then we have a different way of seeing them and reacting to them. So we're going to still discriminate them. We see that it's a person.

[43:34]

How do we understand that discrimination? How do we relate to it? So you're right. It's not a matter of eliminating difference, eliminating discrimination. That really isn't possible anyway. But you're still talking about discrimination, though, as if that was the problem. Often we talk about self and other, that that discrimination by itself is a problem. And I can understand why, but it seems like there's the judging aspect. Is it true that everything would be fine if in the discrimination between you and me, I didn't have any sort of valuation? Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. Yeah, I agree with you. It's not the discrimination. It's how we relate to the discrimination. It seems like we still, though, try to get beyond that discrimination, even, to see... I mean, you can, too, see how that you and me are totally related to each other, and, you know, that it's not too... Yeah. So that's an understanding that we have about our discrimination.

[44:35]

Right, right. Gabriel, did you have your hand up? No. Well, then, understanding, in a sense, is the gate to liberation. But then at some point, understanding has to do with the mind. And isn't the point to have no mind or get rid of the mind a thought process? Yeah, when I say understanding, I don't mean, like, thinking. Like, oh, yes, I understand. Del is also one with me. I get that. I mean, that's nice to understand that. That may be a virtue, but it is not... Ultimately, we're talking about a deeply... an attitude that we hold in our lives that is where we come from, not what we think ourselves into, but where we actually are coming from there. That's actually how we... I mean, right now, everybody has a world, a way that they view the world and stand in the world. We all have that. Because we're human, automatically, that gives us a certain kind of way of standing in the world.

[45:37]

Because we grew up in a certain place and had certain parents and blah, blah, you know, all this stuff, we have a certain stance in the world. This is talking about having a stance in the world based on emerging a difference in unity. Not thinking, just like, you know, you don't think your stance. It is who you are. This is affecting some sort of real shift, you know, in the way that we stand in our world, in the way that we relate to our world. Seeing it in the way that this poem is describing. So when I use the word understanding, I don't mean to say an intellectual understanding or a thought that we have. Rather, a way that we... an attitude or a stance. Because the word attitude actually means stance or posture. So that's what it's more about. But I'm always... I'm an advocate of also having the right understanding too. Because a lot of times understanding something is helpful. It's not sufficient.

[46:38]

But it's helpful. That's why we study. Otherwise we wouldn't study at all. But we study in our tradition. I mean, a lot of Zen schools don't study. They throw away the books. They don't allow books, you know, in the monasteries. There are places in Zen where if you bring a book in the monastery, they'll take it away from you. It's not allowed. And I mean, I can see that. But we, in our tradition, following Dogen Zenji's attitude, we have decided together that there is some virtue in understanding the Dharma. Understanding the Dharma, by thinking about it, is not sufficient. But it's helpful, and it's a language that can help us to reflect on our own experience. So it's useful, but it's not sufficient. We have to have some kind of turning, some kind of real shift in where we stand in our lives. Somebody else, did I see? And the commentary posed a sort of question, like, before we actually had Zen,

[47:46]

you know, they say, before the Dharma was taken away, did people think of delusion and enlightenment? And it made me think of unity and differentiation, and how much we really need the idea of unity. And given that we are discriminating creatures, how much we could, you know, get to the idea of unity, create something for us to strive for that is, you know, not necessary, and we could actually sort of just work on understanding the discriminating mind, and get to the same place. Yes, I agree. Yeah, it could be a problem to think, now I'm going to work to understand unity. So I think that you're right, as a way of practicing, and Dogen says this many times, you know, in different ways, that all we have to do is appreciate and fully understand,

[48:49]

and involve ourselves with our delusions. To do that without being caught and tied up in knots by our delusions is already enlightenment, is already unity. And you could argue, actually, and I would not disagree with you, that the Sandokai, we could do without the Sandokai. You know, we could do without all this baloney about difference and unity, and fusing the branches and the stems and the streams, and so on, why do we need all this stuff? And often the commentators on this text will say just that. They'll say, as Suzuki Roshi says in his commentary, that this teaching of the Sandokai and Hokyosamai became elaborated in the teaching of the Five Ranks, which became pretty complicated, coming from these poems.

[49:54]

In other words, these are fairly early poems, right? In the Dungshan, this is Sekito Kisen, who is like, what, his dates are 700-something. So, after Sekito Kisen, Dungshan, two generations later, so then many writers after that elaborating this whole doctrine, because it does become a doctrine of the Five Ranks, and by the time you get to Dogen in the 13th century, Dogen says, forget this, you know. This is too complicated, this is off the point. And you could argue, well, let's forget it all the way back to the Sandokai. Which would be okay, actually. But, actually, tradition is tradition, right? And it's part of our tradition, and it also is helpful to think about it a little bit. But, yes, let's not get hung up on it, for goodness sake, you know. Absolutely, yeah. And, of course, don't forget, we had a line just a moment ago,

[50:55]

merging with principle is still not enlightenment. Understanding unity is not what this is about. This is not enlightenment, to understand unity. Understanding unity is just something that happens, that's probably helpful to some extent. But if we mistake that for enlightenment, we're really off the mark. It's the merging of difference and unity. Or, let's forget that, let's translate those words in a different way. Instead of saying, the merging of difference and unity, why don't we just say, to follow along with your reasoning, the full appreciation of differentiation. Which is the same thing, see. That is the merging of difference and unity. Do you understand what I mean? So, I mean, I agree with you. Yeah, Andrew. I was wondering why it's like, if it's enough to kind of,

[52:03]

it's enough to really grapple with or really appreciate difference, that alone would lead to an understanding of, that alone would lead to enlightenment. I think I get it. But I think that there's also this experience of unity. And for me at least, the unity part is prominent in sitting. And I think that's true for a lot of people. And I think that for a lot of people, religious experience as a whole is characterized by this wonderful feeling of unity that is in marked contrast to how we usually process a lot. But if the unity part isn't enlightenment on its own any more than the distinctions, I'm just kind of wondering why is it that would come up in sitting. Is it because sitting balances out our perceptions,

[53:11]

and our normal perceptions are so lacking in the unity part that it needs to be full of that to kind of be full of scales? Yes, yes. Yeah, you're right. I mean, that's the religion business for you, right? It's about unity. It's about oneness. You hear this in all religious traditions. It's about oneness. So this is sort of saying, well, let's go beyond religion. That's what it's saying. Let's go beyond that. Let's go into just actual living. Which I think that's why, strictly speaking, it's dubious whether Buddhism is a religion. But when we're not, I mean, this is what I was going to say is a little bit oversimplifying the actual case, but when we're not sitting, and we're getting up, and we're doing things, and we're involved in the world of differentiation,

[54:13]

and there's something at stake for us in that world of differentiation, it's very difficult at that time to understand that everything is actually one. Because we're pulled by our desire, and by our differentiation, and by our judgment, and by our discrimination. We're pulled. When we sit down in zazen, again, I mean, I understand that this might not be everybody's experience all the time, but theoretically, anyway. When we sit down in zazen, we don't have to do anything. See? We don't have to move. We don't have to direct our thinking in any particular way to any particular result. We don't talk. So we don't do any karma, see? We don't. We're just present. If things arise in the mind as a result of past karmic activity, we allow that to arise in the mind and pass away,

[55:16]

but we're not doing anything with that. In that time, it is much easier to see the peacefulness and unity of things. And that is why people do those type of things, you know? That's why people do religious things. They don't realize, I mean, people don't realize how much fun it is, you know? Religion is great fun, because what a pleasant experience, right? To sit there and just feel the oneness of things. It's great. You know, it's wonderful. People think that's the great fallacy of, you know, oh, you get up so early, it's so hard, you zen people. Oh, my goodness, I could never do that. They don't know that we're actually having fun. I find it more fun than, you know, like a rock and roll concert that plays so loud and you get a headache. We're sitting there. I mean, I went to, I was lucky enough to have the opportunity,

[56:18]

which is rare in my life, to go to evening zazen, at least a little bit of it tonight. It's so quiet, you know? So quiet and wonderful. Just nothing going on. Very peaceful. So this unity is something that you experience. But, see, but the challenge is, see, if you say, oh, unity is so wonderful, get those rock and rollers out of my hair, you know, and I don't like all these people around here, trouble all the time, you know, I just want to be in zazen all the time. Man, that's so nice. See, this isn't going to be a problem, because eventually that won't be possible. Something will happen. I'll have to go to the toilet or something, you know? And then I'll complain about that and I'll be upset about it. I'll get real sour that I have to eat or something, you know? So you can't escape living if you're alive. And there have been religious people who have,

[57:20]

you know, like the Jains in India have a tradition of suicide as being the highest form of consciousness, you know? No, really, like, let's really get pure here. No food. No food, no water. Really get, like, pure. So that's, anyway, so you have to bring the world of unity into the world of differentiation. You have to bring it into life. And this is totally the emphasis in Zen. That's why we have these poems, I mean, because it's making a statement that in Soto Zen, it's not about having this experience of unity, although that's wonderful and we need that. It's about putting that together with the world of differentiation. It's about getting up and rolling up our sleeves and getting involved in life from the standpoint of this understanding. That's exactly what our traditional line of Zen teaching is completely about. And that's a gigantic challenge because, as we all know, once you get up from that seat and things start happening, it's real hard to maintain your mind

[58:23]

and not to be pulled around, not to react like a chicken with their head cut off, running around, you know. So it's very difficult, very difficult, very hard practice, you know. Soto Zen, very hard, you know, very hard. But then again, human beings, you know, it's hard to be a human being. It's hard to be a human being. I think it's a hard job to be a human being. So really it's discerning that sitting isn't enough. I mean, sitting alone. No, no. But of course, now you see, the way Dogen talks about sitting is Dogen says, well, sitting is not limited to what looks like sitting. Dogen makes sitting into almost a metaphysical construct. Because he says, right out, he says, sitting has nothing to do with any one of the four postures. What is sitting for Dogen Zenji? Sitting is living Sandokai. That's what sitting means for Dogen. I'm with Dogen. Yeah, I know. I'm down with Dogen. Down with Dogen or out? I'm with her. She's with me.

[59:23]

That's awesome. Okay, maybe we forge on here. Get a few more lines under our belt. We're good about it. Well, I was interested by what you're saying about how what you're perceiving and what you perceive that's inside of you are two different things. What you're perceiving is not responsible for how you're reacting to it. If you're mad at someone, they're not at fault. And it struck me that maybe how you're reacting is probably, it's all differentiation. Your own little self reacting to the world. Why are you responsible for how you react to someone? Isn't that just kind of like, it's just kind of a fixture in a larger reality? Why are you responsible for your fixture or the fixture that follows you around

[60:24]

as opposed to what it's perceiving? It seemed to me, it just doesn't, I mean, if you're like, why are you responsible for all the differences? I don't quite understand that. Why are you responsible for all the differences in the world at large? If you're having something come up, why do you need to own up to what's, I mean, if you're reflecting everything, why do you need to take responsibility for just what, the reflection of everything? Why do you need to say, this person's making me angry, therefore I need to deal with it. I mean, I have my own theories about it. I was just wondering. Well, I'm not sure that I'm entirely, could you maybe tell me your theory so I can understand? Because I don't understand exactly what your question is. Okay, well, I mean, for instance,

[61:25]

if I'm mad at someone, I usually think of that as my problem, or maybe more, I just don't enjoy the sensation of it, so I want to deal with it. But maybe that person was provoking me. Oh, sure, of course. Maybe I should just be pissed off and just tell them, you know, whatever, I'm pissed off, and not say like, well, this is my problem, you know that I'm angry. Yeah, you're bringing up layers of complexity here, because certainly people do things that are dumb or hurtful or mean, right? And it's not a good idea to take everything into ourselves sometimes. Sometimes it's skillful to say to someone, that wasn't good, the way you're behaving is no good, I don't like that, it's a problem for me, and so on. And yet, at the same time, right, on a deeper level, what I meant by,

[62:28]

how I understand Dungshan saying, just this person, is, on a deeper level, what arises in my mind, the whole universe, right, is my responsibility and mine alone. It's just like I was saying, Buddha says when he's born, above the heavens and below the earth, in the earth, I alone am the world-honored one. Every being is the only one. Every person is the sovereign. So, and that's one side. The other side is, we are nothing but the result of, the causes of the whole universe. We're not even there at all. So this is the differentiation and unity. Two sides. One is independence, and that's just this person, that's everything in my mind is my responsibility.

[63:29]

And the other side is interdependence. All the causes and conditions of the world make me. What you're bringing up is a practical matter of living, which is what happens when somebody, you know, gets in your face and gives you a problem. And that's another story that differs depending on the conditions. For example, I think it would be a wonderful practice for anyone, particularly in a time like a practice period, which is a safe and controlled and very simplified environment, to take on the practice of everything, I'm responsible for everything that happens. So if somebody walks up to me, you know, for no reason at all, and hits me over the head with something, that's my responsibility. As a practice, as a way of understanding, in other words, as an experiment, you see, to understand your life in a different way.

[64:33]

It would be a wonderful experiment to try. And I've done this myself, and I found it, you know, extremely interesting to study myself. Now, I wouldn't recommend living like that all the time, for lots of reasons. But even just from the standpoint of benefiting others, it's actually not beneficial to others to let others get away with stuff that's harmful to them. If somebody does have a habit of going around hitting people over the head with stuff, and you allow that to happen, you're actually not being very kind to that person. Because what you really need to do is help them to see that that is really bad for them. And if part of the way that you do that is by saying, that hurt me a lot, and I'm really pissed off about it, then to come forward with that is actually quite beneficial and helpful. So, skillful means is another issue. How to really behave, and how to do things, in what circumstances, and when, and what conditions, that's always a tricky issue. It needs to be discussed in the circumstances,

[65:38]

in each individual case. But no matter what, to be able to stand in this mode of I am responsible, that, I think, is really important to explore and appreciate that mode. Stuart, you had something. Yes, I think pathological. People get stuck in that mode. In what mode? What's that? Yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah. Well, see, if you say, I'm responsible, and by I you mean ego, then you missed the point. Then that's just, you know, then you're twisting yourself up in some kind of elaborate guilt trip. And this is not what Deng Xian is talking about. Yeah. I think there's also the edge here between taking responsibility and taking blame.

[66:39]

Yes. And people get that confused a lot. But from the point of view of, you know, all the elements that we're all made of, psychologically, that's true too. And so if we're all made of the same stuff, not just the same physical stuff, but the same mental stuff, then I think, you know, we can, you know, we realize that our responsibility is, you know, the stuff that we have some knowledge of. Yeah. Yeah, the sense of Deng Xian's remark is a metaphysical remark. It's not a moral remark, and it's not a psychological remark. It's a metaphysical remark. So let's leave that one there for now, because I think this gets, I'm confused. Yeah, go ahead. Well, if someone came up and bopped me over the head

[67:40]

for no reason at all, I'd think he's crazy, and I'd bop him back. Sounds good. Sounds good. Okay. Let's see if we can get a little bit more... We've got about ten minutes before we've got to go over and bow again. So I don't know if that was all about, if that discussion was all about this stanza or not, but anyway. The whole process must return to its source. And the next part says... We usually say, what do we say? The whole process must return. Noble and base are only manners of speaking. Right in darkness there is light, but don't see it as light.

[68:43]

Right in light there is darkness, but don't confront it as darkness. Here it says... Both true and false are expressed through words. Right in brightness there is darkness, don't treat it as mere darkness. Right in darkness there is brightness, don't regard it as mere brightness. So it kind of has this word mere in there, that gives you some feeling, impression. And then Master Sheng Yen says here... We're doing good, we're more than half way through. Honorable and lowly are merely words. In the midst of brightness there is darkness, do not take darkness as darkness. In the midst of darkness there is brightness, do not take brightness as brightness. So I say, venerable and lowly are only useful designations. It does say useful there, only useful designations.

[69:47]

In the middle of light there is darkness, or right in the middle of light there is darkness. And this is a fairly literal translation. Right in the middle of light there is darkness, but do not meet it with the characteristics of darkness. Right in the middle of darkness there is light, but do not see it with the characteristics of light. So these distinctions that we make, the judgments that we make, of noble and base, or venerable and lowly, high and low, good and bad, these are useful distinctions, but we need to remember that they are designations, useful designations, but we need to remember that they are designations. Because we really so much get caught in that they are not designations, they are realities. So remember that our judgments are judgments,

[70:53]

our judgments are designations. Then it says, in the middle of the light there is darkness, but don't meet it with the characteristics of darkness. In the middle of darkness there is light, but don't see it with the characteristics of light. So, in the middle of the world of light, the world of distinction, there is darkness, right in the middle. Because the world of darkness, the world of non-distinction, is not another world, it's not this place over there that we're going to go to. It is this world. But as soon as we meet it with the characteristics of darkness, and call it darkness, and define it as darkness,

[71:55]

we've conceptualized it. In the world of light, we have to be in the light. In the world of differentiation, we have to seriously live in that world. In the middle of darkness there is light, but don't see it with the characteristics of light. Same thing, from the reverse. When we're in the world of oneness, when we see things from the point of view of oneness, don't make that into a distinction. Don't make that into something. Now I'm in oneness, how wonderful. That's different from what she's doing. That's different from the practical world. Don't characterize it like that. Then I made a note here. Let's see what it says. This is my own note. Be aware of interdependency and independence, or discrimination and non-discrimination, within each other. But don't bring them up as issues.

[72:59]

React appropriately to what's going on. Then I have my favorite topic here. Politics. Incidentally, speaking of politics, President Clinton has been re-elected to be President of the United States, but it looks like the Republicans will continue to control the Congress. Maybe close to what it was before. And I don't know about the California propositions. It's too early to tell. Anyway, one of my beefs is about like the Zen people, and it's less the case than it used to be in the past, is you could get stuck on oneness. So you don't have any opinions. You don't have any positions. You don't have any distinctions. It's all one.

[74:04]

So I don't need to worry. I'm going to my little cushion, and what's the difference? Because it's all. All in the world of oneness. So all too often, it's a little bit, I think, of the Zen disease not to say that in this time clear distinctions are called for. And positions are called for. We have to stand for something and say, well, I just don't think this is right. I want this to happen. I'm going to argue in favor of this. So at that time, to fall back on darkness, you see, on unity, and not move forward clearly with one's distinctions, I think is to misunderstand sandokai. On the other hand, to grab a hold of that position like a bulldog and start beating everybody up with it and not have any sense of flexibility

[75:04]

and sense that this is a position that I think is very important because of my motivation of compassion and I'm carrying it forward, but I also have to watch out at some point. Is that going to change? And my adherence to this position is going to become a way for me to beat up on other people so I might have to let it go. At the same time, so you see, this is not falling back into oneness, but staying in the light when that's appropriate. So we always have to know. So this is saying, when it's appropriate to be in the darkness, so in other words, don't bring a novel to Zazen. Don't be sitting in Zazen looking through your novel or that's a ridiculous idea. Who would ever do that? But somebody might sit in Zazen and think about what they're going to do, what they're cooking for lunch today. They might think about that. Or they might be working on their plans and schemes. That's possible, right? Somebody might do that. So when you're in the world of darkness, the world of discrimination is there

[76:10]

because a thought does arise in the mind. But don't grab that and turn the world of oneness into the world of light and vice versa. So do what's appropriate. In service, it's time to bow. So bow, don't dance. Bow. But then later on, it might be time to dance. So then you should dance. And don't go around saying, well, I don't dance, I bow. Then you dance. But when you're dancing, you know that bowing is there. You see? And when you bow, you know that dancing is there. If you don't really know that dancing is there when you bow, then you're really kind of missing the real bowing. If you don't know that bowing is there when you dance, you're missing the real joy of dancing. This is the idea. So we know it's there, but we don't get into it because it's not appropriate at that time.

[77:10]

That's not what's called for in the situation. So in the middle of light, there is darkness, but don't call it darkness and don't get hung up on darkness. Be in the light when you're in the light. And when you're in the world of darkness, light is there. But don't get hung up on that. Do what's appropriate for that situation. So that's how I understand those lines. And this is the hardest thing of all. How do you know? Somebody says, how do you know what's appropriate? How do you know what's the right? If you do well, we study the Samadhi, we study our life, we contemplate these things our whole life through. And then we still say, I'm working on it, I'm still not sure what to do. I don't actually understand my life. I'm just trying here to understand better. We still don't know. But we work on it. This is our joy. This is the thing that's great about this. You see, one of the things in our organization that we're working with

[78:11]

is what happens when people get old and everything. They can't any longer move themselves around to go work in the kitchen. So we should have a retirement. But then we say, we can't retire because it's impossible to retire from Zen. There is no retirement. So we're still trying to figure out a way to call this thing that happens when you can't do anything. Because it's not retirement. Because it's an endless path, right? You're always working on it. And the final masterpiece, of course, is when you pass out of this life. And we know that because some of the great teachers wrote poems at that moment. We have old collections. There's books of collections of poems that teachers wrote at that last moment. Which is a great thing. I always wanted a job that had an endless development. Imagine, I would have dragged with me, like, you're over the hill. At my age, I'm already over the hill. But no, for Zen, I'm just starting. A long time to go here. So that's very good. You should be happy

[79:11]

that you took up something that is endless and that you don't have to say, I'm too old. I'm too old and I'm retired now. Look at Del here. Del's a new student. So, this is hard. That's what I'm trying to say here. That there's no end to our, in the given situation, understanding what these lines mean in terms of our actual living. So let us, maybe we should stop there. I'm kind of getting greedy for one more line. But let's stop here. And we will chant the text using Kasa's translation and everybody's invited who would like to join. Once we stop here, we'll have about five minutes. We'll reconvene in the Zen Do for our end of the day ceremony. Anybody who wants to come,

[80:12]

can join. Stand O Kali The Great State of India Transcended its realization Directly East and West Although there are differences in personality, the way it goes Belongs to Southern or Northern Ancestors. The wondrous shore shines brightly. Its branches Spread in darkness. Attachment To things is delusion. Knowing This essence is not yet enlightened In all objects, things Sense, feel, merge, yet don't Merge with one another. When you Merge, you erase all things Otherwise they retain their Own place. Forms vary in Shape. Sounds vary in tone Darkness blends higher and Lower. Brightness separates Clear and murky. The four varied Elements have their own nature Just as a childless mother Required eat their foods Water wets her. It's a solid Eyes receive form. Tears

[81:14]

Receive sound. The noise responds To orders of tongues. It takes The fluidity. Each function generates Branches and leaves. The river And its tributaries return to Ocean. Both true and false Are expressed in their words. Bright In brightness, there is darkness Don't treat it as mere darkness Bright in darkness, there is brightness Don't regard it as mere brightness Brightness and darkness integrate Each other. Just as one Don't follow the other. Things in themselves Have virtue. Name them according To how and where they work When things are as they are In the lived-in box. You're what I Can sense. It's what I bear When it's meeting in the air. When it comes To words, you must understand their True meaning. Don't set up arbitrary Standards. You don't see the path That meets your eye. How will your Feet know the way? Moving forward Isn't a question of you or far When you're lost. Mountains and rivers Block your way. Please let me Remind you to study the inconceivable For your time is running fast

[82:16]

Don't ignore it We offer the Merit of our chanting Study and practice of the Sandokai For the enlightenment Of all beings All blood Stands Red Shards Three Times All Things Will Be Survived Not Us Survived Us We Are With Some Our Brother

[83:16]

Of Our Amitabh Thank you very much And we'll see some of you Anyway in the Zen Dojo in a few minutes

[83:29]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ