So my name is Raul Denque, and I think we all know each other. I've been here many times, and a few new faces, perhaps. Is that better? It's not on? Okay, there. So it's nice to be back home here at the Perkinson Center. I'm going through a kind of transition in my life. I've been traveling a lot. I'm about to retire from the job I've had at the at the City Clinic in San Francisco in the Mission.

[01:05]

Been there for 29 years. And I think, yeah, I've been here longer, this place, and sitting regularly for a long time. And so my life is changing and shifting a little bit. So it's good to be back, although I've still been back. And it always feels like home, coming back. Very intimate Zendo. And so today for this one day sitting that we're all coming here to sit and have a quiet Sunday of recollection and in-gathering of ourselves and our experience and to give us this focus on Buddha and

[02:14]

Buddha nature. So Buddha is a name, Buddha nature is also a name, but points to something that is more than a name, which is the actual experience that we're having here in Zazen. And I want to talk a little bit more about when, during the last aspects of practice, we studied some of Suzuki Roshi's unpublished talks. And there were a number of themes there that were really striking to me. that I want to go back to, and I gave a talk on it already as part of the aspects of practice, but you weren't all there, so some of it may be a little repetitious, but on the other hand, you know, we're always talking about Suzuki Roshi, so I'll repeat it many times.

[03:25]

So I'm going to quote a few things that he says. He's talking about Buddha nature and human nature, and sort of the meeting point between our humanity, our human nature, which is what we bring here to the cushion, and how human nature meets our Buddha nature. And so what is this Buddha nature that we meet here in Sashin and in Zazen? And he says, emptiness means original Buddha nature that is neither good nor bad, spiritual nor material. So it's not something materialistic that we come looking for, but it's not something spiritual either. And often people find that the most confusing, because we associate Buddhism with a religion or spirituality, and yet he says it's not something spiritual.

[04:40]

So that's why the term emptiness, because it's a word but it seems to deconstruct every idea that we may have about what the spirit is or spirituality is, Even though spirit really means wind or air, the air we all breathe together. So ordinary would think that is material. And yet the breath is more than something material, which is the practice that we do, we're following our breathing in Zazen. It seems to awaken something in us that is more than simply material. But he doesn't bring himself to call it spiritual either. And then this question of Buddha nature and human nature.

[05:46]

What is our human nature? I always thought that Suzuki Roshi had a very human face. You look at some of his pictures, he strikes you as very human. And in this case, you could say human just means very compassionate, a very compassionate face. And I guess that's the way that we refer to being human, is being humane, being compassionate. But human can also be used as to, to err is human. And sometimes in Buddhism we say it is compassionate to err, to make mistakes on purpose. And often these talks are even considered mistakes on purpose. Because here we are sitting in the midst of that which is

[06:52]

beyond description and beyond words and names, and yet we have a name for it. We call it Zazen, we call it Sachine, we call it Buddha, we have various names for it. And yet it's something really that's beyond description, but somehow it seems to help us to have a name for the undescribable or for the inconceivable. But if it was just inconceivable and we didn't have a name for it, it would be harder for us to enter that gate of the inconceivable. So that's part of the mistake on purpose. And Bodhisattvas also have to take the problems on of the world, take the problems of the world on themselves. which means that you have to make it your own problem.

[07:57]

It's not hard to do that because we all have our problems. But even if we didn't have a problem, then we would have to create a problem. Because that's how compassion is invoked, is through sharing the same problem. or maybe being one step ahead of somebody else with regards to a particular problem, but not in such a way that you're unaffected by the problem. So this is that meeting point between human nature and Buddha nature, and the Bodhisattva precisely is that interface between the two. But Buddha nature is often seen as more perfect or without the errors and hindrances of human nature.

[09:00]

We tend to think of Buddhas as perfect beings. And yet, on the one hand, that seems to have a ring of truth to it. And so our teachers and us, we're not the same. We're not one, because the teacher is one step ahead. And the teacher can teach us. And we submit to the teacher. So otherwise, if we were one, then we wouldn't do that. On the other hand, we're not two either, so it's important not to transfer all of our Buddha nature onto the teacher.

[10:06]

Because then we idealize the teacher. And that's also risky to idealize the teacher. Then we think the teacher is perfect. And we think of Buddha nature as perfect. But the teacher is also human. The Buddha is human. The Buddha is not a god. So the teacher will also err. On purpose or sometimes not on purpose. And we have to be able to still see them as the teacher. Because if we think the teacher is perfect and then we see the teacher make some mistake, then we think, well, we don't have to, that's not a teacher anymore. But the teacher is still the teacher. So this is part of the koan of human nature and Buddha nature. And at the same time, no matter what our station is or no matter how long we practiced, and even though we speak about enlightenment or arriving at some realization, the path really is endless.

[11:25]

So we have to keep recognizing what our hindrances are, what our problems are. and not pretend that we are one or perfect. And then, on the other hand, at the same time, if we see things clearly, then we do have to leave from the place from where we are and actualize Buddha at that moment. Then he says, to be faithful to our empty nature will be the only way to live in this world as a human being. So we call it our Buddha nature and accept it. To accept it is a way to be free from it rather than a prisoner of belief. Because we do not accept it, we cannot be free.

[12:29]

So, He makes an interesting distinction between accepting and believing. And it's more important to accept than to believe. Sometimes we take issue with the teachings. We like some teachings, we don't like other teachings. The teaching of emptiness is one that's particularly difficult for people. And the Heart Sutra, in particular, because it's so negative, it negates everything. And Zen often is critiqued as being too negative, the negative way. No this, no that, no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no form, no color, no sound, etc., etc., etc. So, So how is it then that the emptiness is the same as the wisdom of the heart?

[13:34]

Or emptiness is the same as compassion? Isn't compassion something? So if it's empty, then how is there a function of the heart or a function of compassion? And compassion is a pure kind of sensitivity. A pure sensitivity. It's not really the absence of passion. That's why it's called compassion. A pure sensitivity maybe is better than a feeling because there's no feelings. The Sutra says no feelings. And yet it's the wisdom of compassion. So compassion is not a feeling. What is it? So you could say it's a pure sensitivity.

[14:41]

So, the other thing that Suzuki Roshi stresses over and over again is that to practice Zazen is nothing special. Zen is not scripture, it's not philosophy, But it's also not Zazen. So if you think it's Zazen, then you're mistaken. If you think it's some kind of philosophy, then you're mistaken. So he says the clear statement to saying what Zen is, is that it's everyday life. So it's not some particular thing you're doing. It's everything that you're doing. And yet, it's interesting that he emphasizes that, which is what the Platform Sutra says.

[16:16]

But people usually... This is a statement made by somebody who was sitting in Zazen every day. and who created all these practice places and a monastery and so on and had a very strong monastic practice. Yet he didn't want us to think that Zen is a particular thing you're doing such as Zazen or monastic practice. And yet that's precisely what he did. So it says, practice is each moment, every day, all year long. Over and over, we repeat our activity. Our practice is like 10,000 miles of iron railroad. We run on iron tracks in a straight line, never stopping. And the tracks are iron, they're not gold or silver. So it's not some special golden practice or activity.

[17:24]

It's just plain iron. And there's no special way for sages and another one for fools. So there's no special way for monks and a special way for lay people. It's the same, we're all on the same iron track. Even though some people practice as monks in the monastery and other people practice in a Zen center like in the community here, and other people practice at home. It's all the same iron track. And so we all have the same problems. So we're all practicing with the same problems. Problems of getting along with people, practice of relationship, practice of having to work with others,

[18:26]

Practice of livelihood. How do you make your living? How do you pay your rent? Practicing with faith. Having faith, not having faith. Having doubt, not having doubt. What kind of faith we have, what kind of doubt we have. Practicing with health and with illness. Sometimes we're healthy, sometimes we're ill. In either case, we have to practice. And health and illness doesn't make any distinctions between people. We all equally share health and illness. Buddha equally is healthy and ill. So he says, even though you may practice in this way, do not say I practice Zazen for a certain time, in a certain place, and in a certain posture.

[19:30]

So this is kind of a, you know, I mean, we all have a curriculum of Zen practice, but this is sort of like the absolute statement of no curriculum. No, I've done this for so many years. I've counted all the numbers of practice periods or all the numbers of zazens. I've sat, I sit in this posture or that posture and so on and so forth. And none of that. You know, don't say it. And he said this even though he practiced all the time. That's pretty radical teaching. He also liked the Japanese aesthetic of wabi-sabi. He said,

[20:37]

I'll explain a little bit what it is in case you haven't heard it before. He says, Wabi and Sabi mean reality or the real does not belong to any category of the sensorial, subjective or objective worlds. However, it is this real which makes subjective feeling and thought and objective observation through the senses possible. and perfect, and which makes everything able to come home to our heart. So this wabi-sabi is this riddle that is not sensorial, is not through the senses, is not subjective, and is not objective. So what is it? So wabi-sabi is this Japanese aesthetic that's centered on transience and imperfection.

[21:40]

This aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete. So, and it's derived from the teaching of the Three Marks of Existence. And the Three Marks of Existence, according to Buddhism, are impermanence, suffering, and emptiness. So if you say there's One of the main marks of life, our life is impermanent, meaning it's always changing. And life is suffering, the two are related because things are always changing, and changing in ways that we don't necessarily like. So we have to be able to, in order not to suffer, we have to be able to flow with the change of things, the flow of impermanence, even though the way things are changing, we don't necessarily like.

[22:58]

Sometimes we like change, and people when they get into a really a new model or some new idea or some new concept to make change, then we really like change when we agree with it. But when we don't agree with it, then change is not so good, doesn't feel so good. So we have to be able to go with change whether it is the kind that we like or the kind that we don't like. Otherwise we have suffering. And the third mark is the mark of emptiness. So what kind of mark is that? How can emptiness be a mark of what? How do you mark emptiness? Or it's a mark of the unmarked.

[24:06]

emptiness doesn't have any marks. But the way we experience it is as something absent, as an absence of self, and which we also experience as suffering. If there where we expect things to happen in a certain way, or for ourself to be advanced in a certain kind of way, it isn't, the mark is not there, then we experience that change as suffering. And so another characteristic of wabi-sabi is asymmetry and asperity. Asperity is roughness or irregularity. So beauty is irregular and asymmetrical.

[25:10]

So what about permanence? Or what about joy? Permanence instead of impermanence. Or joy instead of suffering. Or form instead of emptiness. What about regularity, subtle regularity instead of asperity, rough asperity or rough irregularity? What about things that are subtle and regular, joyful, symmetrical, permanent? Doesn't that seem to be a lot more of a description of like this place? that is regular, we have a regular schedule, it's predictable, it's always here, is joyful, there are some definite forms that we have here, and we have a kind of symmetry. So what are these?

[26:18]

These are the marks of non-existence. So these marks don't really exist. Permanence, joy, form, symmetry, regularity. Even though these are characteristics that we see in the world around us, the world is constantly moving towards impermanence, suffering and emptiness. So sometimes we divide things in terms of, well, in the Buddha world everything is joyful and permanent and symmetrical, and in the ordinary world

[27:22]

and everything is impermanent, asymmetrical, irregular and so on and so forth. But it doesn't quite work that way. Because both worlds are interpenetrating. So, sukha is dukkha. Dukkha is suffering, and sukha is the word for joy in Sanskrit. And it's the same root, sukha and dukkha. So how is joy and suffering have the same root, or joy and pain actually? In Hebrew, it's oneg and nega. It's also the same word in these two ancient languages.

[28:26]

So, and sometimes, you know, we live that koan, we come to Sashin, and we come to Sashin hoping to find some spiritual joy, and instead, we find pain. And then we suffer around our pain. So how is it that we're looking for joy and instead we find pain? Because these two are of the same root. So when we have pain, We just accept the pain and we don't long for joy. But we don't forget joy because the joy is also there.

[29:33]

So we may experience pain in Zazen or in our life, but the joy is also there. So we don't forget it and we don't let ourselves say, I'll never feel better. And if we feel joy, we don't let ourselves say, I always feel joy, now I've made it. Now I got the problem solved. Now I can live, because now I live on the basis of joy. Because as soon as you say that, it turns. into pain. And when we experience joy, it's just joy. That's it. But we don't long for pain. And you may say, well, why would I long for pain?

[30:35]

Because this is counterintuitive. But in fact, often people, when they don't experience pain or they experience joy, They miss the pain. Because that's what's familiar to them. We miss the pain. We want the pain back. Even though it hurts and is unpleasant, we don't know what to do without the pain. So when we don't experience pain, then we miss the pain. It's sort of like when people hear voices, and then all of a sudden they don't hear voices, and then they tell you, I miss my voices. But they just spent all this time telling you how painful they were, how much they hated their voices, and then when their voices are gone, they miss them. So again, the interpenetration of Dukkha and Sukkha.

[31:40]

Because that's what we know, that's what we identify with. So we're always trying to make a self out of our experience. And then when our experience changes, and it's not that anymore, then we miss our self. So that's why it's better not to try to fix our self on anything in particular. I'll open it up for questions now, and I can keep going if people don't have any questions.

[32:47]

I have a question just based on the thing you just touched on. Theoretically, you were discussing, you know, because pain is familiar to us, we, I don't know how to say it, gravitate to it. Can you give a few examples of how we actually do that? Because theoretically I understand that. Well, let's say you've been struggling with depression and all of a sudden you don't feel depressed anymore. Or you've been struggling with anxiety and the person doesn't feel anxious anymore. And then they start thinking, well, when is it going to, part of it is the fear, when is it going to come back? And they start calling it that way. Or just simply say, well, I miss my anxious state or I miss my depressed state.

[33:51]

How can we break that and live in a moment where we don't have that pain? How can we actively break that so that we, you know, even though it's familiar, Yes, so don't call it. Recognize that you're not having that and see what this other state is. Right, but also don't get, but the other side of that is you get attached to not having it. And then you're afraid you're going to lose that. That's at some moment, now you're feeling good and when are you going to feel bad again? Because then you're holding on to the good feeling, to the joy. Yes? I was going to go back to the issue of in emptiness, how is there compassion? How is this heart energy? And Thich Nhat Hanh talks about it in terms of when we are sitting in emptiness and we experience our total connection with everything and our interdependence with everything, then

[35:09]

I'm not separated and therefore I'm open to having this, that compassion just comes from that experience. Once I recognize you are me and I'm you, then I'm going to be more, I'm going to be able to not filter you out or make you separate. If you're not separate, you're not other, and then I'm more, more with you. And part of that is also, to me, the difference between compassion and empathy and sympathy. What are we talking about when we say compassion? Yeah. Well, to recognize the other as self, it depends which self. and which other? I mean, if you recognize the other as self, sometimes you assume that the other is you, and may attribute, because you feel a certain way, you may think that the other feels in the same way.

[36:20]

But that can also be projection, and that's sentiment, or sentimental empathy, or compassion. So that's why it's... true compassion is on the basis of no particular self. Or that the other is yourself, but not that the other is yourself, but yourself is not the other. The Dalai Lama says, this is me, whenever you meet someone. That's what you're talking about. So this, it's me isn't here looking at there, it's that That's me. So you own every aspect, rather. Things that you share, that you think you share, you accept. Whatever comes. Yeah.

[37:24]

But the interdependence also, the whole structure of it, also has no inherent. existence or nature. So each thing, the whole thing is sustained by the fact that each thing doesn't have its own existence other than as a relationship. Yeah. Ross, thank you. I think you said at the beginning of your talk that compassion isn't a feeling. So if we take in the world or we perceive the world through the five skandhas, form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness, how would we be able to experience compassion?

[38:29]

beyond these five skandhas. Could you say, you know, that the feeling is not maybe the feeling in the sense that we think we're feeling? Because this is, in fact, how we take in the world. Right. Because I don't think you're saying it's not a feeling in the maybe the more mundane sense. Well, the compassion is not conditioned. Right? That's the true compassion is unconditioned. And when we take the world through the senses, then the experience is conditioned by the senses. We like something, we don't like something, we like to hear something, we don't like something that was said. And that limits us, limits the responses that we can have. So the feeling is tainted by self. by self or by the object or thinking that whatever we're seeing or hearing is separate from us. So there's something, we have to see and not see.

[39:36]

And not seeing means not seeing this other as something different than me. And then that creates the basis for something unconditioned to take place in the interaction that is not conditioned by the sense object or by the cognition, whatever concept we have about what it is that the object is or who the other is. Because over time, especially if we get to know each other, we become conditioned to respond to one another based on the sense experience, things seen or heard, in terms of the concepts that we develop of who the other person is. And that limits our feelings for one another. And so Empathy could be one of those feelings, but the compassion that's based on emptiness is unconditioned by all of that.

[40:48]

And then something new, different can emerge. So an expression of compassion is not an absence of feeling, it's actually the purest experience or essence of feeling. Right, but it says no feeling, right? The sutra? Not seeing. So within seeing, there is no seeing, which is an aspect of seeing. Within feeling, there is no feeling, which is an aspect of feeling. That's the unconditioned aspect of it. So you can call it feeling, but it doesn't quite capture it if you just say it's a feeling, because then it would be conditioned. Well, one of the detracting descriptors of Buddhism is that they're not feeling anything, they're just sitting there staring at a wall. But in fact, it's the opposite of that. Thank you for kind of opening that up a little bit for us.

[41:51]

Yeah, well, like all that meditation is having an empty mind. And empty means absence of thought. when it's actually realizing what the nature of thought of a single thought is. Realizing the nature of thought, not that it's the absence of thought. I was just listening to Ross thinking, well, so it's not a sentimental feeling. Empathy is kind of a sentimental feeling, a kind of conventional love feeling or conventional kind of an unconditional acceptance. Would that be a way to talk about it? Yeah. Unconditional. Unconditional acceptance or feeling, yeah. So it's not, I really like that person.

[42:54]

I mean, you can have those feelings too, but it's not about this personal thing, I like that person because they're kind to me. It's, I like that person, period. I accept that person, period, whoever they are. Right. Or even if you don't like them, that you're able to, right? That's what you were saying. That's what I'm saying. Yes. You just accept them completely for who they are or whatever is coming at you at that moment. Including the feeling of not liking them. Yeah. but not being limited by the feeling of not liking them. I think that compassion, it can include feeling, but it's not dependent upon it. So you might have a great feeling come with someone suffering, or you might not. And either one could be compassion. I don't know.

[43:55]

In other words, it really being that in a person's shoes or something and maybe it doesn't have the feeling. Because you can feel a lot of feeling and it feels compassionate. But you don't have to have that feeling. Yeah, but it's... Do you think? But there's... I mean... It's a special unconditioned aspect of sensibility, of feeling. So it's not exactly... I mean, even though we say no feeling, it's usually people mean by sort of no feeling as being aloof or being cold or insensitive. And so it's not really that. It's more... this undefined form of feeling or sensitivity, sensibility.

[45:02]

Yes? So, would you say that there is a state of non-existence? So, X Some people say ex-sistance. There's something about the ultimate reality that is lost in the way we perceive ordinary reality. Or something of death that is lost with birth. So Buddha nature is like the unborn. It's another way of speaking of it. So it's beyond existence or non-existence. So you could say that it exists or you could say that it doesn't exist. It's the same thing with, you know, Buddha or God. You could say equally that it exists or you could say that it doesn't exist.

[46:14]

Either way it's the same thing. Because non-existence, existence is defined by our categories. our thinking mind, our words, and our visual perceptions. So then those are the attributes of existence. But there's something of the real that is undefined by our perceptions, our cognitions, our images, or our language. And yet it's right there. So that's what is it, right? That's all the colons are. What is it? What is it that does not come? Or what is it that does comes? That's the non-existent existence. So the non-existence might have the opposite characteristics.

[47:37]

Yeah, that's true, because you would say the mark of emptiness is also the mark of form, right? Because we're sitting here in Zindo in emptiness, but as soon as we're in emptiness, we're thinking about form. So I move my leg this way or that way, noticing who's moving which way or that way, which way are we supposed to do this, this form or that way, right? So even though we're in emptiness, As soon as we say emptiness, then we have form. And as soon as we have the mark of suffering, we have the mark of joy. And as soon as we have the mark of impermanence, then we have the mark of permanence. We always have this, even though our self is always changing, we're always prone to raise the thought of self. and to think of it as something permanent.

[48:59]

And we have our name, which seems kind of permanent. Every day, you know, we wake up and we identify with our body and with our name. That seems permanent. And yet it's all impermanent. And it's time, huh?

[49:24]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ