Yashana sends the seed, Case 7 of the Book of Serenity. Is this in the booklet? No, it's not. Introduction. Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, each has one ability. The eyebrows are above. Nightmares, memories, afternoons, merchants, each returns his job. The old one is always at leisure. The old one is always at leisure. case, Yau Shan had no sense of this seat for a lecture for a long time. The temple spirit pretended and said to him, Everybody's been wanting instructions for a long time.

[01:02]

Please, Master, expand the teaching for the congregation. Yau Shan had him ring the bell. When the congregation had erred, he outshone himself in his seat. After a while, he got back down in his seat and returned to his room. The superintendent followed after him and asked, A while ago you agreed to develop the teaching for the congregation. Why didn't you utter a single word? Liao Chun said, for scriptures there are teachers of scriptures, for treatises there are teachers of treatises. How can you blame then this old monk? Commentary? The hungry will eat anything, the thirsty will drink anything. Therefore I have five hindas and eight people putting sattvas into the teaching hall, filling their bodies with the happy verse, reviling them with how to eat.

[02:02]

How could they begrudge the teaching? Chan Master Hwai Nun Phuong Luang, nowadays people take the Dharma lightly. I would like that farmer who lets the fields dry nine at a time, impartial and thirsty. After that, when the water is poured on, he will ask for help. When Yau Shun did not take a high seat for a long time, however, it was not like this. Zhao Feng said, I can see you deep within and under the sun, but the beauty of the sun seems to be on her own. Zhao said, seeking my silence, silent when speaking, the gate of great generosity opens with a lightning knocking away. The administrator missed every point. He said, the community has been running this strategy for a long time. This is bound to be important to the course of humanity as a university of hosting guests.

[03:07]

This is not on the line. Sir Lashon added to ring the bell. He only saw the clumbrous issue at the end. When the congregation gathered, how could they know the topic related to slavery? Yahshua took the high seat, remained silent, and after a while, an animal entered the Abbott's room. This man's super-moral power is not the same as the little one's. The superintendent did not follow behind him. A while ago, you agreed to respond to the teaching with your congregation. Why didn't you utter a single word? Jinyan said, Thanks, I'm at an emergency. At first, the superintendent wondered why he didn't say a single word. This could involve misleading the synagogues. I said, for scriptures, there are teachers of the ages. For the Jesuses, there are teachers of the Judases.

[04:10]

How can you blag this little buck? And I said, when Yashan got down from the seat, that was unavoidable. When he was confronted by his superintendent, he lost one eye. I said, how many could he cover completely? Yet he does not know how to get back to life. His clay doll says, What pity that old fellow has found if the dust has not even ground. No one in the world can help him up. I say, you too should like a hand. Oonius the Dirk says, He had already lit the dust before leaving his room. Quietly he returns without feeling a mistake. Teachers, the churches, and Jesus will probably tell him. When one fact is distinctly clear, he'll call on himself. I say government officials are easily tested, but the public case is not complete. Even if you tell him all, how will he tell you?

[05:13]

Reverse. A foolish child troubles over money used to stop running. A good speed traces the wind, looking at the shadow of the web. I'll sweep the eternal sky, nothing but the moon and the grain. The cold clarity gets into his bones, and he can't go to sleep. In the Great Divine Scripture, it says, when a child cries, his mother takes care of his and says, I'll give you some gold. Whereupon the child stops crying. The first line burst to eyes. We had been wishing for some instruction for a long time. Why did you add a single word? An outsider asked a little. I don't ask about the spoken or the unspoken. The world honored one in the inside. The outside then hallowed state. The world honored one's gift of compassion has opened the clouds of my wisdom and allowed me to gain insight. After the outsider had left and unmasked the widow, what could he see that he seen this time?

[06:24]

The widow said, like a run horse, he looks to see if he sees the shadow of the widow. Alshon and O'Rourke are one race away alike. The superintendent led the assembly at once. There was something to be praised. You may have wondered why Alshon didn't say anything. When I say that I have to report to China, I must do it outside of the media. Chantant is recitation in this way, and by explanation in this way, are all yellow leaves to stop crying. It is just because you are sound asleep at night that you awaken. Those who sleep as light will wake up as soon as they are called. Well, the sleeper sleeper can only be aroused by shaking them. There is yet another time to do it when you grab the stem down and wipe it down to the east, but they still will not be able to sleep by themselves, staring. Compared to those who have the eye of the sun, a prayer against feeling the clear moon is so clear you can't sleep.

[07:27]

But the difference is that you can be aroused to know. But even so, this sleep talk is not good. So, should we read the thing again with the added sayings? Yaushan had ascended the seat for a long time, a woman in as good a stillness. The ten laws that burn the heads of such men. Everybody stood by his instruction for a long time. When he talked, he came to the memory. He relied on the head, not the life. When the assembly had gathered and gathered together and acted as ministers, what mattered could be troublesome. It outshone the sense of deceit. After a while, he got right back down and turned to his room. That's something to talk about. Why do you even utter a single word? If the ocean were filled, the hundred rivers would have to flow backwards.

[08:31]

For scriptures, there are scripture teachers. For treatises, there are treatise teachers. How can you wonder about this, O knock? And then the first. A foolish child with a priceless look in mind needs to stop crying. What's the use? What can he possibly do? A good priest needs to take a look at the shadow of the earth. He gets it right up and goes. How sweetly it comes back, nesting in the moment of the grave. An embarrassment for the one who lived with his tree. The cold energy gets into his bones. He can't go to sleep. He is dreaming with all his eyes. Done. I'll do maybe here like this.

[09:37]

Done. I might be wrong, Regina. Maybe it isn't a blueprint record. I didn't think it was, but I'll check. The story about the Buddha and the outsider shows up as a commentary. I remember coming across it. I'm not sure if it's the same. There were a few typos or missing things on here. Okay. I tried to write a few down, but I kept on losing track, so... A whole bunch of things? There's a few. Okay, why don't you mention them for people? The first commentary... Oh, I see maybe other people caught them. There's a line on the second paragraph...

[10:41]

Third line, at the end of the third line of the second paragraph, I think it says, this is not out of line. The administrator missed every point. Course of humanity and duty in the capacity of host and guest, this is not. Out of line. It says out of line. What? OK. What? Out of line. Out of line. OK. And then down below, I was, one, two, three, the fourth paragraph where it begins, Yaushan said, the second phrase is, I have, how can you blame this old monk? Yeah. Is that what that says? That's it. The earlier translation said, how can you blame this old monk, or how can you blame me? It says, how can you doubt the soul? Yeah. No, but that's what it was before. He changed that in his last... When the book got published, he changed it to doubt. It used to be blame. And then... Is that a question?

[11:49]

In the commentary, it says doubt. So we have doubt, question, and blame. Three translations of that. Doubt, question, and blame. I forgot to say Susan. Sorry. I did know. And then who just came in? Deborah and Michael. The last one I caught was the commentary after the verse in the last paragraph. It says, ten tongues, versification in this way, and then the phrase, and my explanation in this way is missing before it goes on. And my explanation in this way are all yellow leaves. Oh. To stop crying. Oh. Ten tongues, versification. It says, ten tongues, versification in this way, and because you are sound asleep. Oh, yeah, right.

[12:50]

Ken Tong's versification in this way and my explanation in this way are all yellow leaves to stop crying. It is just because you are sound asleep and not yet awakened. It is just because you are sound asleep and not yet awakened. Okay? Okay? All right? So this particular introduction has some easy pickings in it, I think.

[14:02]

Any easy pickings, interpretations about the introduction? There's a story in one of the other cases about the eyes, complaining for the eyebrows, worrying about me, and she doesn't have, you don't do anything. And the mask, the mask, the eyebrows, you know. I'll try and find it. Okay. Well, I'll do the easy pickings then. I think one of the things the introduction is saying is that everybody has their unique job, and that's your job and that's it. For example, the eyebrows have the job of being above the eyes and so on.

[15:13]

That's their job. And this is referring to the story where Yashan has a job, and his job is not to give lectures, and his job is not to explain scriptures or write treatises. His job is to be a Zen teacher. Okay? So each person or each being has their skill at being what their job is. Each of us has a skill at doing the stuff we have to do every day. And if you don't know how to do anything, you really have a leisurely type of job. Sometimes I think, you know, in the position of abbot, sometimes I think about all that an abbot could do, and I start feeling kind of sick.

[16:29]

But then I remember I can't do anything, and I feel fairly relaxed. But that's my job, to remember that, because that's where I am most of the time. But still, it's always a problem about how to be a Zen teacher, how to proceed. It's always a balancing act. Or to be a Zen student, whichever, same thing. That's the simple interpretation of this introduction. So how is a real Chan master devised technique? Hmm? How is a real Chan master devised technique? Yeah, that's a problem. How do you unfold the enlightened way, moment by moment? Well, you have to do it from being carry. You can't do it from any other way. And you probably, maybe you don't, but somebody might think,

[17:37]

that there's some way other than taking care of what's right, obviously, in front of you to take care of, that would be the true way. And who would be unskillful then? Well, just somebody who's always at ease. The Buddha is really the unskilled one. The Buddha is the one who can't do anything. In the same section of the scripture, actually, where they talk about giving children yellow paper to stop them from crying, They also point out that Buddha can't stand, can't walk, can't sit, can't talk.

[18:45]

Buddha's the one who's at leisure. Buddha's the one who doesn't do anything. But bodhisattvas have to, you know, circumambulate Buddha in various ways. We have to do the dirty work. Yes? Lots of them. Yeah, to make up for Buddha, to do all the things. See, Buddha actually is not doing anything, and yet also Buddha, although Buddha doesn't do anything, still Buddha responds to what people need. If people need something, Buddha responds. But the bodhisattvas sort of manifest the response. They, what do you call it, personify the response. Buddha doesn't, in the role of Buddha and bodhisattvas, Buddha doesn't do anything. Completely at ease, Buddha is totally unskillful. Is it like the, I take refuge in Buddha, Buddha takes refuge in me?

[19:50]

Thich Nhat Hanh? Yeah, it's like that, yeah. Buddha takes refuge in me? Uh-huh. Is Yau Shan in Jared? Is Yashan in here manifesting the Buddha or acting as a Bodhisattva? Or is he acting as a Bodhisattva manifesting the Buddha? Well, before he responded to the call, he was playing a role pretty close to Buddha. Well, even when he responded, he played the role that we've seen Buddha. Yeah, he played a role like Buddha. But he did respond. He didn't go in there. But he didn't go too far. Now, some people go in there and they really babble away, say all kinds of stupid stuff for our benefit. But he just went this far.

[20:54]

This was his far. Huh? He lost his eye. How do you understand that? He said too much. You think that's maybe why he lost his eye? Because he compromised himself a little bit there? Maybe so. Reading... I haven't read enough of the Book of Serenity, but reading the Bültef records, very often it's a little confusing about losing an eye and gaining an eye. Sometimes it seems that having one eye is actually a very good place to be. You know, that there's the conventional two eyes and then having an eye, having one eye, is in some senses an attainment above the conventional two blind eyes. And then there seems to be another perspective from which having two eyes is a level of attainment or a relinquishment of attainment that conventionally would be thought of as a higher level of attainment.

[22:15]

Right, that's right. Sometimes one eye is... In two cases, one eye would be good. One eye would be that you have the eye of oneness always. The other is that you get at least one eye. It's an improvement. But as you say, to relinquish even that improvement, then you get two eyes. But Buddha doesn't even have any eyes. He doesn't even have blind eyes, because Buddha takes no position on eyes. Or bodhisattvas can act out being blind, having one eye, and having two eyes. and it depends on the context what it means. What I was, I guess, wanting to know before is, it seems like, given what you were saying about bodhisattvas sometimes having to circumambulate the Buddha,

[23:18]

that what happens at the end is that Yao Shan does more, that he manifests as a bodhisattva, in a way, and that the commentators say, you lost it. It seems like he's criticized for... for attempting to... For giving yellow paper? for giving yellow paper when the child isn't going to stop crying. Where did it say the child won't stop crying? Well, the child had several chances here. Oh, I see what you mean. Well, it just goes to show that that doesn't work so well sometimes, giving paper actually, giving yellow paper still doesn't work. Then in order to get him to stop crying, you have to give them lots of yellow paper sometimes.

[24:31]

And he wasn't willing to give lots of yellow paper. You just give a little bit. I guess what I'm asking is even that, to put it in fine terms, what he did, what he finally said at the end, seems in this context to have been more helpful than if he had just held it silent. You mean when he said, don't blame me? Yeah. Well, it sounds like you're saying, well, what I could see is that he gave some yellow paper by going into the hall. It didn't stop the superintendent from crying, so then he gave more yellow paper, and then the superintendent, if the superintendent's like you, feels, stops crying.

[25:38]

Do you think that's more helpful than just having gone into the room? Is that how you feel? That it is? That those final words were kind of helpful. In this situation. Yeah, I think so too. In another situation they would have been... And what I'm saying is... Not so helpful. Yeah, and what I'm saying is that there's a child, a crying child inside me that was satisfied when he came to the lecture hall, and there's another child who wasn't satisfied until he said that second statement. So there's a children inside me that are satisfied by that kind of activity of bodhisattvas. I always liked his response too. I thought, gee, how nice, that's a nice response, satisfied. But was I satisfied before he even came in the hall? What would you be doing with this dead paper? What would you be doing with all this dead paper? I'd be whatever I remember.

[26:41]

I'd be a farmer or a craftsman or a merchant. That's what I'd be. Or I'd be totally at, maybe really at leisure. But there's a child inside me, maybe, that sometimes cries out for something, for some yellow paper. I'm already getting what I... The gold's already right in front of me, right? The gold is my assignment. The gold is to use what's right here now, what's at hand. But sometimes I don't feel the function of it, so I start crying. And then, so here's a nice response to my cry. I play the role, the superintendent is born in me. So I cry. And then Buddha, if that's what I want, Buddha responds. And then if I want more, Buddha responds.

[27:41]

And if I want more, Buddha responds. But Buddha doesn't necessarily, but when Buddha responds, in some sense what's responding is the bodhisattvic activity, is the skill and means. So a Zen teacher can play Buddha. And playing Buddha means, like, what do we say, Wang Bo's, there isn't much to Wang Bo's Zen. Or Wang Bo also used to say, just walk around looking like you're too sick to care. Okay. So, just to Just try that way. In other words, be yourself. Like be a kitchen worker. Or be an acupuncturist. Or be a weaver. Or a lawyer. Or a candlestick maker. Do that work. That's really Buddha. That's strictly Buddha.

[28:43]

In other words, if you're not doing it, you're not standing up. You're not walking, you're not sitting, you're not lying down, you're not talking in terms of your Buddha work. You're not doing anything. Do you know what I mean? That's very strict. That's the kind of strict Zen. When we go up to the altar, The one way to go up to the altar is like this, move up like this, you know, and then you bow and you come back, usually we come back like this. Another way to go up to the altar is to go up like this and you go back like this. And another way is to go up like this and come back like this. And of course there's many other things to do too, but there's a style of Zen where you play the role of Buddha.

[29:54]

And in some ways, Zen dares to, in some sense, play the role of Buddha. In other words, to really just be yourself and not do anything special. And that's like going up to the altar like this and coming back from the altar like this. It doesn't mean you identify with Buddha and say, I'm Buddha. But you also don't make Buddha at a distance by going up in gassho. It's very kind of, a kind of tough feeling to it, you know? And I remember Sun Tzu Kurishi showed me this way, and he said, I like this way, he said, of going up this way and coming back. He said, this is kind of Zen. I feel very Zen when I'm doing this. He said, but if I do this, Yoshida Roshi and Tatsugami Roshi will get mad at me. So, there's something about the feeling of being kind of like, tough about being who you are, and being your own, accepting your own cultural destiny, just being that, that's really like Buddha.

[31:05]

And although you do walk around, that's not like you're not walking around like trying to do anything by that. But that isn't good enough for people, so the bodhisattva comes forth and does whatever they need. If they want you to walk, you walk. If they want you to talk, you talk. And so they say, they say walk, so you walk. And then they say, that's not enough. Walk some more, so you walk some more. You never know how much. Or you walk too much, they say, that's enough, stop. Yes? It's a good question. What if you like your, if you want to do something. Yeah? You drive down the Mill Valley, and there's a parking place, and this parking place, and this other clown comes and says, says, no, no, no, that's my parking place. You go, oh, no, no, no, that's my parking place. And then the guy says, no, no, no, that's my parking place. So you go, it's my parking place. And then you have this dead body. Yeah. And that's sort of what you feel like doing right there.

[32:09]

Right. It's like a cheating person. Right. And you do. And then it's sort of like, conventionally, there's a sort of a problem with that. Right. So it's like, I was just often coming up for me. And I was like, what? Don't do it. I probably won't. Yeah, it's a bad idea. Well, we understand the example, though. Even before you finished the story, we had a feeling of what you meant. So, you see what I'm writing here? I think so. So what I would say is that to play the role of Buddha would be to follow the precept. So when it comes to the precepts, you first of all have to completely be dualistic about them. In other words, you don't kill people. And you don't be possessive of your... It is your parking space, but you're not possessive of it.

[33:11]

Or if it's not your parking space, you don't take what's not given. And you understand that in a dualistic sense. However, you're not attached to that understanding. You're completely flexible about it, but you definitely have that understanding and you act out that understanding, but you're totally flexible about it. That's Buddha. Bodhisattva is to shoot him. Or whatever, rough him up. You know, that's a Bodhisattva. But, without violating the precepts, Buddha will not violate the precepts in the dualistic sense and be totally detached. The Bodhisattva obviously is detached because he's violating the precepts, so obviously he's not attached to the precepts.

[34:17]

The Bodhisattva is definitely flexible, right? But the dualistic understanding in the Bodhisattva's case is not there. Because it looks like he's breaking them. It looks like he's putting himself in front of the other person or something like that, right? How is that? So how is that the bodhisattva's way of helping people? So he's actively out there trying to help people. Of course people make mistakes and then it's not helpful to the person. You're wrong if it doesn't help the person. But sometimes it helps the person to butt in front of them or hit them or whatever. That's not Buddha, though. Buddha never butted in front of anybody or ever hit anybody. Occasionally, he played a little bit of a bodhisattva. Occasionally, he got a little maybe terse with somebody or called somebody a fool or something. He did? Yeah. But the bodhisattvas have done outrageous things and they've been beneficial.

[35:21]

And a lot of the Zen stories are that kind of bodhisattvic activity. So here we have a case of where the guy came to do it and answered the question. Two bodhisattva acts, I would say. None that didn't violate the precepts, I don't think. So if you're going to act out something about yourself, and if it violates the precept, it better be extremely beneficial if it seems to violate the precept. If it doesn't accord with the dualistic understanding of the precept, then it better be helpful to the other person. And it definitely is sometimes very helpful to the other person. When you do something which looks like breaking a precept, sometimes a person is extremely helped by it. Certainly when monks violate the rules of decorum, it's often very helpful to people.

[36:25]

But that's not Buddha, that's Bodhisattva. Buddha doesn't, that's very active, that's doing something. When a Buddha follows the precepts, that's not doing anything, that's just following the precepts. There's nothing personal, no personal acting out there. He's totally at leisure. There's no occupation. And that's why we have the monk's forms, is that there's a form where you don't have to do anything. You can live your life without doing anything. But if you get into driving cars and stuff like that, then the only way to continue to practice this not doing anything would be to dualistically follow the precepts. That's the way I would understand that. So, Buddha is very bland and boring. And that's why a lot of us were not attracted to Buddhism by Buddha. I wasn't. I came to be exposed to Buddha after being attracted by bodhisattvas.

[37:28]

D.H. Lawrence said that, too. He didn't like Buddha. He went to Southeast Asia and was exposed to the Buddha, and he just didn't find the Buddha was too perfect, the Buddha was too complete. The Buddha doesn't do anything. But bodhisattvas get out there and act out scenes which are just like your daily life scenes. They go into shopping, they go into malls and stuff, and they almost buy things and almost steal things or almost have things stolen from them. They get right in there. And Buddhas don't do that. And Buddha's disciples, you know, the disciples, the people who are called the disciples, the arhats, the people working towards arhatship, they also don't do anything. They can't. The rules forbid them to. They can't be with women. They can't really talk to women unless there's somebody else around. All this stuff so that they... Basically, they can't do anything. So they're almost... They're acting like a Buddha. They're acting like they're complete, like they're finished.

[38:32]

And if they're not too good at following the precepts, then they don't look quite as complete or finished as they would. And Yashan was... a little bit acting like a bodhisattva. So arhats do not give yellow paper to people, basically, much. Even though in their hearts, really, they're not a Buddha yet. And they probably would like to give people what they want. Maybe not an arhat, but people on that path. But they can't. They can't do anything. Excuse me, but a Buddha is not making any compromise. A Buddha is not like restraining something by acting that way. People who are training to not form, they're restraining something until they're complete.

[39:38]

Bodhisattvas do not adopt the form of Buddha. But of course, remember, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, you can never separate them because you need Bodhisattvas for Buddhas to function. Buddhas cannot function unless you're Bodhisattvas. I mean, they cannot function fully. Their emanations depend on the bodhisattvas. Didn't the Buddha Gautama do a lot of bodhisattva activity even after attaining enlightenment? Yeah. He did a lot of lecturing, carrying around and even participating in the day. Yeah. I think he did do lecturing, that's right. He also sat down in front of an army once or something. Yeah. Why are we stuck up there? So the Buddha indulges in bodhisattvic activity? Well, I can't say in that case, you know, so much, but I can say that sometimes, I don't know how he was feeling when he did that stuff, but I do think that sometimes you do things for people after you've already told people what you have to say, and you've already shown people what you have to show, which is who you are, and they don't like that, so they ask for something else, so you give it to them, okay?

[41:09]

I don't know if Buddha giving those lectures was him... I don't know if Buddha was sitting there fully expressing himself, being himself, giving his teaching as what he was, and then people said, well, that's not good enough. Would you please talk now and give us a lecture? And then he said, oh, okay, you don't like what I'm giving? Now I'll give you a lecture. I don't know if that's the way he felt, but... it might be that he just was the kind of guy that was into giving lectures, like he did, and he didn't feel like it was yellow paper. I don't know. If he did feel like it was yellow paper, then if he feels like, I already did it, now why don't you, then yes, I guess that would be that understanding. So, look at the Buddha's story, you know, from the beginning, you know, he was just sitting there happily, and that was what he was. But that still wasn't Buddha yet. He has to convert beings.

[42:12]

And so you can say, well, so he gave this teaching. I think the point anyway here is that the person is giving the teaching that they deem is the teaching they're giving. That's their attempt, and people aren't satisfied with it, so they give something else. Then that's giving the yellow paper. What do you think? I find it difficult. I'm sitting here thinking that you're telling me that the sun can't shine unless the planets are all around it. And even in an imperfect world, I think the sun still can shine. In an imperfect world? In an imperfect world, if you want to say, I agree with you. Let me say that a world still evolving, in purpose of a word, a world still evolving, still can have a sun that shines without planets around it.

[43:23]

And by sun shining, you mean Buddha? I mean, yeah, there's no difference between the sun shining and planets, and Buddha without planets. It's difficult to discuss Zen because Zen doesn't like to talk about different planes like other traditions, but we can come close because Before I read this case, meditating on this case before I read it, I was ready to come and say, well, if it's true that you can't get it out of paper, how come we study paper? Then I read the case. In other words, while it's a different state between bodhicitta and sacchitta, ananda,

[44:32]

But as soon as the world evolves to Buddha, then there's no more Buddhas. You don't need Buddhas unless they're suffering beings. I don't accept this as a possibility. I believe that there's ... You're always evolving, no matter at what state you've come to. You can tick the hunk that gets up and says, you know, somebody's not the ideal, what's the way? So there is no other. It's always, let's call it, an imperfect world. So there's always Buddha. Does that make you accept that? What? Accept that there's always Buddha? Yeah, because, using what you're saying, there's always an imperfect world, so therefore there's always a Buddha, because there has to, there needs to be.

[45:46]

I don't know about always, but I would say that the suffering beings are endless. There's just inexhaustible suffering beings. And the main cause for Buddha is those suffering beings. So you have an endless, limitless cause of Buddha. But I don't know about that. I don't know exactly about always. It's a little bit different. Always is a word in tongue. Yeah. So in tongue it is. Yeah, I just don't know. I just haven't heard him say that. I mean, I can see that large scheme I say that. Bringing this discussion into my question that I have was, well, okay, so... The question then is, in studying these cases, should one take the attitude of one of the bodhisattvas or one of the characters in the cases, or should one read the cases and kind of like

[47:10]

You get in a different place if you sit rather than if you sit and concentrate or do anything and concentrate. You get in a different space if you don't concentrate. That's the closest that we can get to bodhichitta, which would be the only reason to study the cases. Bodhichitta is the only reason to study the cases? To get yourself, kind of like you tune into that particular consciousness. bodhicitta is the only reason to turn into some kind of consciousness?

[48:15]

See, I don't think of bodhicitta as a reason somehow. I think of it more like a seed or a plant than a reason. I think of it kind of like a living thing than a reason. Well, I don't... I don't see it as a... Of course, you know, I think we both understand it as a state of actually existing. You know, your mind, you know, sometimes you're being a loving father. Sometimes you're being... in a state which I would call . What's that state? I would say it's an awareness where you know that The limit that your own involvement can bring you is to keep your mind focused.

[49:34]

That is the limit. And thereafter, the rest of your state is being the magic of the Shining Buddha. I think I'm going to leave you with that. Yeah, I challenge that. I challenge that assumption. That's exactly what I'm challenging. I, you know, challenge, yeah. I think you're using, the way you're using bodhicitta, I don't quite understand in terms of, you know, the way I usually use it. The way I use bodhicitta is that it it is actually the mind of Buddha and at its inception it is primarily a thought, a dualistic thought of wanting to benefit all beings ultimately, completely.

[50:38]

That's the bodhicitta at its inception. And in order to keep it alive and let it grow, and it can grow into anything, you need to protect it by generosity and ethical conduct and patience and effort and concentration and insight to protect this thought so that it can grow into something which is not just a thought. but is actual, full functioning awakening. But it has this simple dualistic thought at its root, which is wanting the very best for all beings without exception. That's the way that I usually have been, you know, learned to use the word bodhicitta.

[51:40]

I would not call that bodhicitta, although I think we're speaking about the same thing. I would call that karuna yoga, which is union with the oneness of all in compassion. Yeah, you can call it karuna yoga, but what you're calling bodhicitta before is not like what we were just talking about. I didn't understand that that was like that. What you were talking about before sounds like a kind of concentration practice. That's what it sounded like. I'm sorry. That's why I'm trying to use other words than English to communicate more succinctly, but I'm not trying to... You are using English, though. Well... Aren't you? I'm trying not to. I'm trying to use something a little more semantic, but apparently I'm not succeeding. I keep hearing English. Well, I'll keep trying Sanskrit until we get it in tune, because I don't think I can express it. I think it's inexpressible.

[52:44]

Oh, when you say bodhicitta, I think that's English, I guess, now. I forgot that you said that it was a Sanskrit word. Well, could you be concise? I mean, you said quite a bit, and I kind of don't get the point of what you've been saying. Without you, you know, could you just sort of say something, kind of bring it to a head? You know, I'll consider it again and make another attempt at it in terms of abracadabra later on in the case. Okay. Okay, but... So what I said so far is one thing to get out of this case, which is simply something quite simple, namely just taking care of ordinary things is good.

[53:58]

I found that story, which seems somewhat relevant now. It's in the commentary of Case 20. Mouth asks, commenting on the last one, a verse, purpose of 10 years, clearly he turned his back on one pair of eyebrows. And there's a story, mouth asks, knows, eating is up to me, speaking is up to me, what good are you that you were above me? Nose said, among the five mountains, the central one occupies the honored position. Nose then asked eyes, why are you above? Eyes said, we are like the sun and moon, truly we have the accomplishment of illumination and reflection. We dare ask eyebrows, what virtue do they have to be above us? Eyebrows said, we really have no merit. We are ashamed to be in a higher position. If you let us be below, let's let the eyes look from above What place hold the view?

[55:05]

So value and meaning, as Chandrasekhar said in the lecture, an ancient said, in the eyes it is called seeing, in the ears it is called hearing. But tell me, in the eye draft, what is it calling? Thank you. Is there anything about the... Waking up? I didn't think that the eyebrows moving were like the Buddha waking up. I thought it was like, again, the Buddha becoming alive. that the awakening becomes alive in the world for us. It's like the appearance of Buddha.

[56:08]

That's the way it's usually used. It's like, in terms of the refuges, There's one refuge, which is the perfect enlightenment, unsurpassable enlightenment. And then there's the Dharma, which is the fact that that enlightenment cannot be defiled. And the Sangha, which is the peace and harmony that goes with that enlightenment and its purity. But then there's the Manifest, triple treasure, and that is that Buddha manifests, and that's the eyebrows of Buddha. That's the way they usually mean eyebrows, that the Buddha manifests. And as the Buddha manifests, then the Dharma manifests. And how does the Dharma manifest? The Dharma is that which is manifest.

[57:23]

Realized. The Buddha is realized and the Dharma is that which is realized. But the Dharma is not the realization. It is that which is realized. And there is the Sangha, and what's the Sangha in that case? It's the study of what? Of the awakening, of the manifest awakening, the manifest realization of awakening, and that which is realized. Okay? In the second case? In the second case, is bodhisattva Sangha? That's part of bodhisattva. Part of bodhisattva is the study of the realization of awakening and that which is realized.

[58:27]

But there's another part of bodhisattva, which is Sangha, namely the peace which accompanies awakening and also the people who in the third manifestation of Buddha, I mean the third way of looking at the triple treasure, are they actually those people who take care of, you know, teachings and who take care of, what's the Buddha in the maintaining, what's the maintaining Buddha? I mean the maintaining and abiding Buddha? Yeah, the converting. those beings which take care of the actual conversion of beings and the materials that are used in the conversion process. Okay? So the eyebrows, I think, particularly refer to the Buddha as manifesting, or the Buddha as being actualized. Yes?

[59:31]

I don't know if everybody's following that. That was sort of a reference to a lecture I gave on Saturday, the three types of triple, of three jewels. Yes? These type of public cases seem valuable because they create endless discussion, even argument, right? Uh-huh. personal experience. Each one of us can discuss personal experience through these cases, endlessly. So, is it, this phrase, movement isn't as good as stillness. Now, the first time this movement of stillness really came clear to me in one phrase was when I heard the translation of the Japanese phrase, move still, one just. All right, movement and stillness are just one. And this one is saying movement isn't as good as stillness.

[60:34]

So from this experience I had with that Japanese phrase, which happens to be on the back of the rock, so I had this very personal experience with it. And now all of a sudden, There's a real value judgment placed in front of me here about movement. It isn't as good as stillness, but just a second. I don't know that I'm weird. So, what do you say? Why are they arguing at this point when it's a beautiful song? Well, you know, like I was talking to Jim this morning, Somebody said that the goal of Zen is satori, is a kind of insight, initiatory insight. And then we're talking about how some people think that we have a practice without a goal.

[61:40]

But a practice without a goal does not mean that we say there's no goal. It also doesn't mean we say there is a goal. So Buddha and Zen does not say that there is or is not a goal. Okay? But some people who practice Zen say that there is a goal and this is the goal. And some other people who practice Zen say there isn't a goal and this is not it. Okay, but those are people that are talking. Zen did not say that there was or was not a goal. But I'll tell you, if you say there isn't a goal, that's not going to work, like there isn't one. And if you say there is one, well, if you think that there really is, that's not going to work either. I'll say that, and that's me talking. So, again, you can say that stillness, of course stillness and movement are one. And somebody can say stillness is better than movement.

[62:46]

But somebody else can say movement is better than stillness. Or now I can even say either one whenever it feels like it's the best thing to say. Yeah, and then you can see how that works. Whereas I was stuck with this other one. Right. But it is true. In the dualistic world, it is true that movement and stillness are one. That's true. And dualistically speaking, in conventional truth, that is true. It is also true in absolute sense. However, absolute sense wouldn't be saying such things. Yes. I was wondering whether in... in this conversation that those aren't discussion of movement, two different discussions of movement and stillness. To say that they're one is, and to say that stillness movement is not as good as stillness may be talking about two different things that are two of the same things in a different way.

[63:58]

that in one case talking about movement and stillness being one is a discussion of realization, and in the case of valuing stillness over movement is talking about not creating causes, not making an effort to set things in motion. Could you say that again, please? Could you open the window, please, Tony? That when there seems in this statement, in the discussing case, I'm sorry, I guess the whole thing got very thick.

[65:02]

And part of it is that it runs very thick. It runs all the way back to the first case, to Tiantong's verse, which is characterized by Wansong as being a cutting put-down of Manjushri. But Tiantong says there's nothing to be done about Manjushri's leaking. And reading through this case and the previous case, the Matzahs, black and white, I think, well, actually, there's another way of taking that, which is just at face value. There's just nothing to be done about that. That's just seeing the movement that takes place. But looking at it as Manjushri creating movement, creating activity, setting things in motion, then from that perspective we can see, well, Manjushri's making an error. In this case, when Yaoshan concludes his act of stillness by turning to the superintendent and saying something to him that's explanatory about what he's done,

[66:16]

from the perspective of just recognizing that as continuous with Yaoshan's previous action and that that's all Yaoshan manifesting. Then you see that as one, his stillness and his movement as one. But if you see it as Yaoshan intending to set things in motion, intending to create explanations, then you say, well, maybe that's not as good as just being still and silent. Uh-huh. Yeah, but I don't think he was doing that. I don't feel like he was... Even when he answered, I somehow feel that he was just kind of like going kind of like, just leave me alone, okay? Mm-hmm. I feel like it was just being defensive in a real authentic way and not really explaining anything, but just trying to ward off more tears.

[67:25]

That's how I always felt about this. I felt he stayed real congruent with the way he was when he wasn't giving lectures at all. And that... And I also feel that when Yashan went into the hall to give the talk, that although it looks like he was giving yellow paper to stop the people from crying, it does look like that in a way. But I somehow feel like he stayed against, even that was like congruent with the kind of person he was, because I see him as kind of a guy like, kind of like the kind of guy he was, was like, oh, you want me to go in there? Okay, well, ring the bell. I'll go in there. But not like this was a change from him not even going in there in the first place.

[68:31]

It's kind of like, what is it? It makes me think of, you know, Kadagiri Roshi had this teacher A very strict teacher who nobody knows about. Wasn't famous, this guy. And he only had one disciple, I think. I don't even know how he got that one. And his disciple went to Eheji and got to be the attendant for a great famous Zen master named Hashimoto Roshi, who everybody knows about. Just about everybody. And while he was there at Eheji, he had a great time. He got enlightened. Karagiroshi did. He was just totally enthusiastic about Zen Buddhism, Zazen, Dogen Zenji and all that stuff, you know. Okases, everything just was wonderful, you know. And they went back home and immediately just went to bed and stayed in bed all the time, totally depressed. And they just couldn't function, you know, because his teacher didn't give him anything.

[69:39]

And then he said to his teacher, why didn't you tell me how great Zazen was? And his teacher says, he didn't ask. It's kind of like that, that I feel like Yashan's just sitting in his room or whatever, I don't know what he was doing, but then they say, give a lecture, so he gives a lecture, or he goes into the room, but he doesn't, you know, they didn't tell him what to say, right? If they told him what to say, he could, he said, now go in there and say this, and he probably would have gone and said, okay, today's lecture is about what? The Lotus Sutra. What chapter? You know. But he didn't even, he didn't even, he wasn't even told that, go in there now and give a lecture and we'll tell you, we'll tell you what to talk about So another way I feel about this is that he was authentic and congruent and a Buddha all the way through. And staying in his room was Buddha. After they asked him, going in there was Buddha. And coming out and going back to his room and saying that when this guy said to him was Buddha.

[70:42]

At the same time, you can understand the story as Bodhisattva. Namely, he was doing his teaching. They didn't get it. They said, we don't get it. We want instruction. You're not giving us instruction now. Sitting up in this room is not instruction. We want a different kind of instruction than this one. This is not really instruction. We want the kind of instruction where you go in the room and tell us something, give us some instruction, so do that. So he says, okay, you don't like this, I'll do this. And that this was yellow paper, and then the other one was yellow paper too. So both Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are non-dual. So when you do a bodhisattva act, Buddha is there and you're being completely authentic and you're not doing a thing. Buddha is non-dual. Bodhisattvas are dual. That's why Buddhas totally embrace duality, because they're non-dual. Bodhisattvas fool around because they're dualistic. But you never have a Buddha without bodhisattvas.

[71:46]

Always the Buddha is surrounded by millions of bodhisattvas doing all that needs to be done. Isn't it all in one being? It's all one thing. You don't have Buddhas by themselves. You always have bodhisattvas and around the bodhisattvas you have all the sentient beings. And you have bodhisattvas carrying out and doing all the work and all the activity that needs to be done for Buddha to emanate and respond to the calls of the people. So when you look at Buddha, you can see perfect non-movement, non-duality, just Buddha as he is, or person as they are, we as we are, exactly as we are, exactly as we are, that is Buddha. Not doing anything, that's Buddha, okay? That's awakening. Then there's activity, which is not exactly what we are. That's doing something, okay? That's not Buddha. It's still helpful, liberating activity, But it's not Buddha. Buddha is not to move.

[72:47]

Buddha is not to do anything. And to not do anything means to be exactly, precisely the human being that you are. That's Buddha. But when you do things, that can also be bodhisattva, because Buddhas and bodhisattvas are not dual. And you don't ever have just a Buddha by itself, you have surrounded by bodhisattvas. So if you can't see the bodhisattvas running around you, then you're going to have to be the bodhisattvas running around you. But again, you're also simultaneously not moving in the sense that you are exactly who you are, and that's the way you're Buddha. You're Buddha by being exactly, precisely what you are as a human being. That's how you're Buddha. And you're a bodhisattva in the sense that you... That you being exactly as you are isn't sufficient. People don't get it. So, in a sense, you compromise who you are, and that's some activity. Seems to be doing something. Seems to be moving, right? Moving from what? From exactly what you are.

[73:51]

But, in fact, you never have a being just being exactly what they are. They always have this adaptation, which seems to be a movement around them. Because you have Buddhists and Bodhisattvas are non-dual. And in this story, I see both his level. I can see him as never, ever slightly deviating from being Yaushan and being exactly a human being the way he was, and he never compromised or gave anybody any yellow paper. And that was perfectly effective and perfectly awakening. At the same time, I can see him being a bodhisattva and adapting. But the Buddha part is the part where he's not doing anything. The Bodhisattva part is the part where he's doing something. But everything he did can be seen as not doing anything. And anything he didn't do could be seen as doing something. And you can also put that in a hierarchy, but then it keeps spinning around, you know? Not doing anything is when he sat at a seat and didn't speak. Is this what you're calling not doing anything?

[74:55]

No. I'm saying that not doing anything means you are who you are. So if you walk into any room and get up onto a chair, you, Jim Abrams, being just as you are as a human being, walking in there, getting on the chair, sitting down, every step of the way, you are exactly a living being the way you are a living being. That is Buddha. You're not doing, at each step of the way, you're not doing anything. At each step of the way, there's no karma. There's no action. The no action part is the Buddha. Every step of your life, you're constantly being who you are, and as you're being who you are, you're not doing a thing. Okay? Also, you can look at it to say, well, he walked from there to there. That's a bodhisattva. Bodhisattvas look like they're walking around Buddha. You know? They change position. They take turns. They do different things. And then we see, oh, that's action.

[75:56]

Okay? That's bodhisattva. That's skill and means, some device, some technique, something they do. That's a bodhisattva. But every step of the way, the person that's doing that as the person who's doing that and nothing but the person who's doing that, that's a Buddha. But you can never have one without the other if you think about it. And in fact, you don't. In fact, all of us are enacting Buddhas and bodhisattvas constantly all day long. And we're doing this in response to this kid who's crying, inside or outside, wherever you want to say. There's suffering beings in every direction, and that's our response. Our response is Buddha and bodhisattva. The sentient beings bring the Buddha into the world, and then the bodhisattvas are emanations of the Buddha. As soon as there's a Buddha, there's bodhisattvas around it. I'm trying to attach the words infinite and finite to Buddha.

[76:57]

I'm having a little bit of trouble with working in one sentence when you talk, and then the next sentence you say something that makes it not work. It's too psychological, in a way. The word infinite and finite? From my perspective, I have a psychological connotation on those two words. I'm wondering what you think about that. Is Buddha, in the way you're talking about Buddha, infinite? And Bodhisattva, finite? I don't know. The work of a Buddha is the work of a Buddha is infinite, really, really, really, really infinite, precisely because a Buddha is a person is just what they are.

[77:59]

When something is just what it is, that is definitely infinite. When a rock is just a rock, that's infinity. Bodhisattvas, in some sense, vow to take on that perspective In that sense, to whatever extent they have not yet been finished that work, in that sense, they're finite because they have not yet been able to settle into completely what they are. As soon as they settle completely into what they are and don't do anything, they're useless to Buddha. Buddha fires them and says, okay, now you're going to be Buddha? Well, go into your own world system and do that then, because I'm the Buddha here, and all you guys are supposed to be running around circles around me. So if you're going to switch from being an active one to being a Buddha, well, that's fine. But you can't really be yourself and be a bodhisattva. See, I'm sorry, folks.

[79:01]

Bodhisattvas really can't be themselves completely. They're still a little bit, you know, something missing kind of practice. But again, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are non-dual. He's a teacher for the three worlds. He's a teacher for all living beings, all living beings. He's a teacher for all humans, all gods, all hungry ghosts, and for hell beings. He's a teaching for all beings in three worlds. However, beings in hell do not appreciate, cannot appreciate the way he's acting now. So he sends bodhisattvas to do his work for him. Beings in hell appreciate things like something that would make them feel like, something that would

[80:03]

would cause them to think, for example, that would cause them to say, thank you. That would be kind of, does it kind of help people in hell? And Yashan, probably not too many people in hell will say thank you to what he's doing here, right? So he's... Yeah. That's another weird part about this. People who play the role of Buddhas have trouble having disciples. Like Kadagiri Roshi's teacher, we don't even know about him. Karagiri Roshi hardly even stayed with him, because he was actually so close to being a Buddha, at least the way he looked and acted and stuff. Whereas Hashimoto Roshi was a great bodhisattva, you know, and everybody could appreciate him practically, although he did have his Buddha side, if you saw pictures of him. It's sort of like he's just expressing Yosan. And he's not really concerned with helping. Yashan just expressing Yashan.

[81:06]

He's not concerned about whether that helps the monks or not. That's right. I thought he was being completely responsive. He said, expound the Dharma. He just expounded the Dharma. He's completely responsive. He's trying to be helpful. He's completely responsive. He's trying to be helpful. And he probably doesn't even think about it. Bodhisattvas definitely, at the root of their activity, is the vow to help all beings. That's all they really care about. That's all they care about. If you don't have that at the root, you can't be a Buddha. But bodhisattvas sometimes, even the greatest ones, never think of that or hardly ever think that thought, even though it is the root of their life as a bodhisattva. So I think you're right. that he may never think of that or have any idea of helping them, even though the essence of his being is to help people. And he's completely responsive and also completely authentic and genuinely himself.

[82:07]

And that is the most helpful thing. However, people don't get it sometimes. Therefore, it can be modified into yellow paper. And sometimes you get other people to do it for you. but their activity is inseparable from your being yourself. And we have to, we need to figure out how to settle into this dynamic of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. We need to know how to completely be ourselves in our daily life. and have the courage to really be exactly what we are, at the same time not be rigid about that, because Buddhas aren't rigid. Because Buddhas are inseparable from these extremely flexible bodhisattvas. So I don't know about this infinite, finite, but you could say heaven and earth.

[83:09]

The Buddhas like the heaven, and the bodhisattvas are like the earth. The Buddha is totally unmoving from what it is. Bodhisattvas aren't moving from what it is, but they demonstrate inconceivable flexibility and adaptation to needs, which is the same as saying Buddha responds to what people need. So how can we do that? How can we live like that? It's actually so close. It's very, very close to where we are right now. Because you don't have to do anything to not move. You're already doing it. You don't have to do anything to be exactly as you are. You're already doing it. You've actually got it down already. How can you appreciate that and actualize what you already are?

[84:10]

And then, But not get rigid about that and sort of get all tight about being what you are and holding on to your position when it comes time to park a car and somebody else wants it and you had the idea that you were going to park it there. How can you stay with what you are moment by moment and also be flexible? This is the whole thing, you know. And this is Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and this is giving yellow paper and also giving a Dharma which is Which, you know, if people aren't crying, it's good enough as it is. In other words, this is good enough. Is anybody here crying? Yeah, so that's not good enough. Anyway, this is one layer of this case that we're talking about here. Do you think that the superintendent was also a Bodhisattva?

[85:17]

Do I think so? Definitely. But can you see the Buddha there? It's even easier to see him as a Buddha, isn't it? The superintendent? Yeah, yeah. In some ways it's easier to see him as a Buddha than even to see Yashan as a Buddha. Because Yashan... What the superintendent is doing is probably the way Yashan was in his room before they invited him in. He's probably saying, I wish somebody would come in here and teach me something. Or, you know, I wonder if they have any good sutras in this monastery. But the superintendent has really spilled his guts. He's really shown us a sentient being, hasn't he? If you can see that superintendent as he really is as a human being, If you can really see that and see that that's Buddha and him not moving from that is Buddha, then maybe you could also see that something like that is in you.

[86:20]

Oh, that's something so close, so intimate. But it's the hardest thing to be with. That's the hair's breadth deviation there, you know. And then, if you get in touch with this very tender, very sweet, extremely intimate thing that is you, as you are, and then to be flexible about that as other people unfold how it should emanate. But then maybe he would have been satisfied. He wasn't satisfied. I'm saying that to not be satisfied and to just be that, exactly as that is, to actually be not satisfied and really be willing to do that because that's where you're at, and not to move from that, that that's exactly what we mean by awakening.

[87:29]

By awakening. That's not necessarily what we mean by manifesting and realizing Buddhahood. What I'm talking about is unsurpassed perfect enlightenment. To actualize it is a little different for the eyebrows to move. But what awakening is itself... And this also, notice, you know, there's the awakening, the unsurpassable awakening, okay? Then there's the purity of it. You see, the purity of it shows, the purity of it is why it can be just like you are. Because the purity of enlightenment doesn't say, it can't be like you are now. It can't be like you, dissatisfied monk. Enlightenment is so pure, it doesn't rule that out. It has no predicates. Buddha as the one-body Buddha. But the actualized Buddha, and also another aspect, the Sangha aspect of that Buddha is peace.

[88:43]

There is peace and harmony when you actually can accept that you are not satisfied if that's where you're at. There's peace there. There's harmony there. There's, what do you call it, congruity there. There's a great relief. But I want to say something, a couple of things. The class is just time to stop. And I wanted to say something about the next, I want to give you some homework assignment. I think this is the last class, by the way, because I'm going camping. I don't know, but out in the woods. I'm going camping, and it just says donations, by the way. Remember, there's a donation box up there, and you can get a lot of merit if you put something in it.

[89:48]

I want to say, the next case is a case that you can study a lot for. And I want to tell you what you can study. The next case is about cause and effect, OK? And it's closely related to the previous case about these four propositions, OK? Okay, so here I'm gonna draw you a bunch of connections, okay? You have case number six, case number eight, okay? Case number six is about the four propositions. Nagarjuna, four propositions. Okay? And the other case is about cause and effect.

[90:53]

Nagarjuna wrote something called the Mulamajamakakarkas, which means the root verses on the middle way. Okay? The first one, the first verse is nothing whatsoever. There's nothing that exists that is caused by itself, caused by another, Caught.

[91:34]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_85.21