I think we have a few visitors tonight right welcome to the class and I apologize in advance if the Sutra is going to seem a little bewildering but that's all right. Bewilderment is actually a key element in spiritual practice anyway. Let's see now that Miffen's handing out some materials. Those are not for tonight. Those are for next time. Homework? No, well I thought that I don't know if anybody will actually read it or can read it but

[01:16]

I thought it would be worth a try that you could read it you could read it between now and next week and I'm thinking that that's where I'll start next week. I figured no use giving you a text that you don't have a chance to look over in advance. At least a fair chance to do it if you have the time. So we ended up last time, I'm skipping a part now, last time where did we end up? We ended up with this part here. Remember this whole big long section of the Sutra is a very detailed analysis of the function of seeing. An effort to determine what is seeing actually and as it turns out we've seen it isn't at all what we think it is that we haven't really thought about it

[02:17]

that much and we don't really know what it is and all the things that we think that it is it seems not to be. And seeing here it could be hearing or tasting or any of the other senses but it just so happens that seeing is being used as the example. So it's a pretty exhaustive discussion of this and to a certain extent that there's some repetition in it and so on. So I think we can safely skip some parts of it. But the part where we left off was the part about the two moons, right? Isn't that right? That was sort of where we left off where the Buddha said to Ananda, as you now see me the essence of your seeing is fundamentally bright. If the profound bright original mind is

[03:22]

compared to the moon the essence of your seeing is the second moon rather than its reflection. And the idea was that if you stick your finger on your eye looking at the moon and you take your finger off you see two moons. But the second moon isn't really another moon, right? It really is the first moon only it's a little off because you stuck your finger on your eye so it's not a different moon. It's a different thing from the reflection of the moon in the water. The reflection of the moon in the water relates to the moon but it isn't the same image of the moon. It's a reflected image. So the real moon is compared is the metaphor an image of the Dharmakaya

[04:24]

the ultimate mind. The second moon is an image of the Sambhogakaya which is the true mind in an aspect that's perceptible. And the next reflection of the moon in water is the Nirmanakaya which is the world of appearances which is a reflection of the moon. So that's what he says that's where we left off. And now I'm going to skip a section which doesn't actually explain any more than we have here so you can safely skip it. And I'm just going to carry on with this section here that continues the discussion of seeing. And it's a little bit hard going but we'll do our best. And it's

[05:34]

interesting because this section here of the Sutra is actually case 94 of the Blue Cliff Record. Case 94 of the Blue Cliff Record is just a quotation from the Shurangama Sutra. So I will read you a portion of the Sutra and we'll talk about it then we'll go to the Blue Cliff Record and we'll read the pointer and the poem in the Blue Cliff Record and see if that sheds any light on the situation. And so then we'll talk about it and see what we think. So, and you remember that the essence of the issue here that we're dealing with is the fact that our seeing the nub of our seeing is the limitless consciousness that has no beginning no

[06:39]

end, is neither inside the body nor outside the body and is not a thing. It can't really be named and can't even be said to exist or not exist. So in other words it's inconceivable. All our categories of description and understanding don't really suffice to touch this consciousness that flows through our sense organs and allows us to see. And yet at the same time we are limited, our sense organs are limited, and that which we see is very limited. Somehow the meeting of the limitation of the organs, the objects, and the limitlessness of consciousness produces what we call sight, and what we take for granted as everyday sight, not appreciating that sight in all the other senses are manifestations of this unknowable, ungraspable activity. And earlier, in

[07:48]

various places throughout, the Buddha points out that it's because we don't know that, and because we don't pay attention to that, and don't fold that into our experience of living that we suffer. We suffer from our limitation. We don't recognize that within the limitation is the limitless of our life. So all that we fear, all that we desire and don't get, all that we run away from, or run toward, or make us unhappy, is actually not a cause for unhappiness at all, because everything we need is always there in the activity of consciousness, if we saw the true nature of consciousness. That's basically the point. So I'm just reviewing that to sort of put it in context of what we're talking about here. So Ananda, this is the Buddha talking again, Ananda, all things near and far have the nature of things, are things. Although each is distinctly

[08:55]

different, they are seen with the same pure essence of seeing. Thus all the categories of things have their individual distinctions, but the seeing nature has no differences. This essential wonderful brightness is most certainly your seeing nature. Essential wonderful brightness of enlightenment is nothing other than your seeing nature. And then this is the part that begins the blue clip record case number 94, those of you who were, well we were together at Tassajara and we talked about this, no? If seeing were a thing, then you should also be able to see my seeing. So if you and I look at something, you know,

[09:59]

we assume we both have seen that thing. So I know you're seeing because I'm seeing that thing too. So I'm seeing you're seeing. I'm aware of you're seeing. You're seeing just like I am. If you say you see my seeing, when we both look at the same thing, then when I am not seeing, why don't you see my not seeing? Sometimes you can look at something and not see it, right? Maybe you, like, it's not that uncommon actually every day in Zazen, you're sitting there with your eyes open looking at the wall but you don't see the wall, maybe. I don't. If I look at it, I can see it, but actually I don't see the wall. And the reason I don't see the wall is because even though my eyes are open and the wall's in front of me, I'm not looking at the wall. I'm following my breathing, I'm being aware of my posture and so on. I'm not actually trying to see the wall. So that even though I'm conscious and my eyes are open and there's something in front of me, I'm not seeing it. And this happens. Mostly we know about it in relation to a sound. You probably all have experience of, like, the birds are singing.

[11:19]

Right? Like, no, there's birds singing. But before I said that, you probably didn't know there were birds singing, right? There was a sound. There's your ear, it's there. The ear's not plugged up or anything. But because you didn't turn your attention to the sound of the bird, you weren't hearing it. So in like manner, if we both look at something and we both see it, then you say, see, I see you're seeing, I know you're seeing, I know what you're seeing, I'm seeing the same thing, I understand you're seeing. But if you don't see it, because your attention is elsewhere, I don't know that. Right? I can't tell. Isn't that so? I can't tell that. If I see your eyes open, and I see that you're conscious, and you're looking the same way I'm looking, then I think you're seeing. Well, that's because in the first instance, I wasn't really seeing you're seeing. I was assuming, but I wasn't really seeing. So, if you really saw my seeing, then you should be able to see my not seeing. You should be able to know that even though my eyes are open, I'm not seeing. Well, how come you don't? Okay? That makes sense, right? If you do see my not seeing, suppose you did see my not seeing, it is clearly not the thing that I am not seeing.

[12:38]

If you do not see my not seeing, then it is clearly not a thing. And how can you say it is not you? I'll read that part again. If you do see my not seeing, it is clearly not the thing that I am not seeing. If you do not see my not seeing, then it is clearly not a thing. And how can you say it is not you? So, if you could, you can't. We already know that you can't see my not seeing. But suppose you could. Suppose you could see my not seeing. Then would the not seeing be a thing or not? Would it be something that you were seeing? If it were something that you were seeing, it would be seeing. It wouldn't be not seeing. If it's not seeing, then it's not a thing. And you don't see my not seeing anyway. If you don't see my not seeing, then it's definitely not a thing.

[13:46]

Right? So either way, you can't see my not seeing as something. It's either you see it and it's nothing or you don't see it and then really you don't see anything. So, seeing my not seeing and the whole issue of the fact that it's possible for someone to have the eyes open and so on, in other words, the consciousness not be in effect, even though the organ is present, the mind is there and the object is there, the fact that it's possible for it shows that there's something limitless at work here. There's some other element added to the mix that enables seeing to take place. So then he's saying that seeing is not a limited thing. And when he says, how can you say it is not you? What he means is you are Buddha. How can you say that the seeing is limited? How can you say that it's not you?

[14:48]

So, we'll investigate this further. Let me go on a little bit and then we can poke at this and see if there's anything in Master Hua's commentary that would help us to appreciate this. Here's what Master Hua says about the line, if you do see my not seeing, it is clearly not the thing that I am not seeing. So he says, I say that the seeing is not a thing, but you don't believe it yet. Let me make it clear, we hope. If my seeing nature, which is without distinctions, sees a thing which has certain distinctions, and if the seeing becomes that thing, as you say, then the seeing nature should be visible. This is the idea being here, that when I see something, there is no other seeing except

[15:54]

the contact of the organ and the object, and seeing the object. That's it. There's nothing else besides that. If that were the case, then you should be able to see my seeing. Therefore, you should be able to see my seeing, because if seeing is a thing, it should have characteristics which can be distinguished. So if you could see it, it should have characteristics. However, there is nothing certain about when my eyes look at things. Sometimes my glance comes in contact with something, and then you say, the seeing is that thing. But sometimes I withdraw my glance, meaning my attention, from the object and do not see it. If you hold that when I am looking at something, my seeing is that thing, and if you say that when you also look at that thing, you see my seeing as well, then when I withdraw my glance and no longer look at the thing, why can't you also see the substance of my not seeing? Why can't you point out where it is? Since you cannot see my not seeing, then are you really seeing my seeing when we are both looking at something? You should be

[16:58]

able to see the not seeing if you're really seeing the seeing, because you'd see that it wasn't there anymore. If you can't see the not seeing, then it must be that you're not really seeing the seeing either, even though you're assuming it. However, say that you insist that you do see where my not seeing is when I'm not seeing something. The substance of my not seeing is still the seeing nature. The appearance which I do not see is still a thing. When my seeing has separated from the thing, and you continue to see the substance of my seeing as you say, it should be clear without further explanation that my not seeing is certainly not the thing not seeing. That's a little hard to understand, I admit. But I think we get the point, right? Seeing is not a thing. Seeing is not what it seems to be. It's limitless, and it has to do with the nature of consciousness, which is associated with, but not the same as,

[18:04]

the act of seeing. So paradoxically, seeing is seeing and also not seeing at the same time. And that's what he means when he says, how can you say it's not you? You hear me, as I say, meaning Buddha nature, limitlessness. So let's go on. What is more, if your seeing is a thing, things should also see you when you see them. With substance and nature mixed up together, you and I and everyone in the world are no longer in order. Ananda, if when you see, it is you and not I who see, then the seeing nature pervades everywhere. Therefore, whose is it if it is not yours? Why do you have doubts about your own true nature and come to me seeking verification, thinking your nature is not true? And that's the conclusion of that little section from the Buddha.

[19:05]

So, what is more, if your seeing is a thing, things should also see you when you see things. Well, to me this doesn't exactly follow logically, but we have to accept the logic of it. Somehow the Buddha is indicating here that if seeing were somehow, so here it turns out that seeing, actually when you think about it, seeing is completely unknowable. I mean, even though we can talk to one another, right, and we have a certain conventional way of saying, you know, I saw the sunset, the truth of the matter is, we have absolutely no way of knowing what the other person is seeing. We really don't know. Just like if you try to imagine, what, like I'm thinking all the time, you know, I think about this a lot, I'm sorry to admit, but I'm thinking, you know, what is my dog thinking now?

[20:13]

I am, is my dog is dying, you know, and I'm trying to think, you know, is my dog like unhappy? Is he suffering? You know, what is he thinking? Well, there is no way that I can know what my dog is thinking. It's absolutely impossible, no matter how much I think about it, and how much I try to have empathy, and how much I try to observe his behavior, I cannot know what my dog is thinking. But you still do that. What? You still try to think about what your dog is thinking. Yeah, but it's fruitless. Move. So, however, and I kind of get it that I don't know what my dog is thinking, but I kind of think that I know what you're thinking, or what you're seeing when you see something, even though I really don't. So, your experience and my experience are absolutely mysterious and unknown. You know, you know, and you can say, we can have language,

[21:16]

but that doesn't really express who can understand another person's subjectivity, even on the level of simple perception. That's because it's something that is unnameable, really. The subject is unnameable. The subjectivity, the subjective experience is something that is actually unnameable, because it's limitless. You can't really say what it is, except in a very limited framework, and we live in that framework, or we operate on that framework. And we say, did you see the sunset? Yes, I saw it. It was very beautiful. And we assume, oh, she saw the sunset. Isn't that nice? But it's not really true. So, if it were, though, he's saying, if it were true that this seeing were limited, as we think it's limited, we live our lives as if our lives were limited. If that were true, if seeing were a limited thing like that, and not this unknowable thing, then, he says, as if it were definitely,

[22:18]

logically so, and maybe it is, I don't know, I just can't figure it out. I take the Buddha's word for it. If that were so, then when you looked at something, it would be looking at you. Meister Eckhart says that, you know. He says, the eye with which I see God is the eye with which God sees me, which is very similar, in a way, to what the Buddha is talking about here. But anyway, he says that if that were so, if sight were really limited, as we think it is conventionally, then a thing, I guess the idea is, see, I guess maybe what it means is, this limited sight is not my subjectivity. It's this thing, just like a tree or a stone is a thing. It's not my subjectivity. Yeah. So, if it were a thing out there in the world and not my private, unknowable experience, then it would be this thing out there, like a beam of light that would go in both directions. So, when I was looking at the stone, the stone would be looking at me, and so, Buddha sort of puts that out there as something very logical and clear. He said,

[23:21]

and if that were the case, then what a mixed-up world it would be, because then everybody's seeing it, everything is going back and forth, and it's very disordered. The world makes sense because it's ordered in the way that it's ordered, so things don't see me. Think how, actually, people who are paranoid think that, right? They think that everything is seeing them and having a bad opinion of them, right? Imagine what it would be like to live in a world that everything was looking at you all the time. Think about it. Well, I mean, if it was disordered on the conventional level, you thought that, you would be really in a bad way. So, this can't be. In other words, it can't be. This shows that seeing is not a thing. And on to, if when you see it, it is you and not I who see, then the seeing nature pervades

[24:22]

everywhere. Therefore, whose is it if it is not yours? So, Master Hua says here, you have the seeing nature, I have the seeing nature, everyone has a seeing nature. The seeing nature is all pervasive and there is the same amount of seeing nature in the Buddha as in ordinary living beings. That's true. So, it is said, it is not more in a sage, it is not less in an ordinary person. At the level of a sage, it does not increase by the slightest bit. At the level of an ordinary person, it does not decrease by the slightest bit. You have your seeing, I have mine, everyone has his or her own and the amount is the same. It is exactly the same, exactly the amount people can use. It cannot be insufficient. Just this very point is where the wonder lies. Since everyone has his or her seeing essence, since it is all pervasive in this way, who do you intend to give your seeing to if you don't want it?

[25:24]

You can't give it to anybody. If you don't dare acknowledge your seeing, whose is it then? If it is not yours, speak up and tell me, whose is it? Well, he said. So, what is being said here is that if you actually paid attention to your acts of perception and appreciated the working of consciousness as it manifests mysteriously and in this unknown way through all your acts of perception, you would realize immediately that you were Buddha and you would require absolutely no verification. You would be a self-authenticating being, which is what the Buddha is, right? The Buddha is a self-authenticating being. And think about all the suffering in our lives because we require some sort of confirmation and authentication from that which is outside of us. This is really, when you come down to it, this is the root of

[26:34]

suffering, right? We're looking for something outside of us to convince us. I mean, this is a stupid thing to say, but it's really true. We're looking for something outside of us to convince us that we're really here because we're not sure. We don't feel that it's so unless somebody mentions it to us or something. So, we need a lot of stuff, right? Think of all this. Think of this world. This world is like a vast machine, basically. All that human beings make, you know, and all the destructive power in all of that, because it's a mixed blessing, you know, what human beings make, all of that is there to prove that we really exist because we can't feel content enough to let it be so. We have to prove it. I think that's really the truth. Do you understand? Do you recognize that? I think it's true. And you can look at human

[27:35]

relationships, right? We need each other to tell us, you know, we're okay. And that's a very human thing. But if we really rested in our acts of perception and understood them as they are on a moment-by-moment basis, we would not need that kind of authentication, and our love could be freely given instead of, I need this from you. This is where things go sour, right? I need this from you. This is what I need. So you see, this is a very abstruse and cockeyed argument in a way, but when you think about the implications of it, it really does make you think and stop what you're doing for a second. So that's why, you know, it's a very noble practice in meditation to, and this later on in the sutra, there's a whole big part about this, but one of the most

[28:44]

wonderful practices of meditation is the practice of simply listening to settle the mind and body, you know, come back to the breath, align the mind with the breath, let go of other thoughts if you can. If the mind becomes quiet, you can do that. And just simply listen to the sound. There's always some sound, you know, no such thing as silence. Listen to sound, but don't name it or delimit it or say it's this or say it's that or say I don't like it or I do like it or it's pleasant or it's not, but simply give your whole body and mind to sound. Then you can actually feel how it is that the sound, that the conscious act of hearing is a limitless act. You can hear actually the entire universe and you can hear silence in listening to a sound.

[29:49]

And the same is true of other senses. You can also feel the same thing if you just simply pay attention to the sensations of the body. You can see that in the consciousness of paying attention to the sensations of the body, deeply, without any distractions, penetrating into the heart of it, you find emptiness and the limitlessness of consciousness. But usually in our acts of perception, we're not able to pay attention to that extent because we're thinking about other things and our huge ideology around who we think we are comes into play. And so naturally, it's not a tragedy. It's a pretty natural human thing that we limit our lives. So this is an argument telling us, look, it's okay if you do that and later on we'll hear that we're always going to do that. But if we know we're doing it, if there's a mind who knows that this is the case,

[30:52]

then we can be free of suffering. We can appreciate this. So I'll read on a little bit and then I'll go to the koan and then we can discuss. Now, so Ananda, remember in this whole sutra, it's Ananda, for those of you who are new to the sutra here, I'll tell you that the whole sutra begins when Ananda is on the point of leaping into bed with this prostitute who has cast a spell over him. And he's about to do this and the Buddha notices that he's about to do this and he sort of saves him at the last minute. And then he says, Ananda, there are certain things about the nature of perception and reality that you clearly don't understand, otherwise you would have been able to overcome this spell quite easily. And the whole sutra is to set Ananda straight because if you're a Buddhist monk and you have sex, it's really bad. It's not like just unfortunate, it's dire. So it's a serious thing. So that's why Ananda is the

[31:59]

speaker in dialogue with the Buddha trying to understand this teaching. So Ananda said to the Buddha, World Honored One, given that this seeing nature is certainly mine and nothing else, when the thus come one and I regard the palace of the four heavenly kings with its supreme store of jewels and stay at the palace of the sun and moon, this seeing completely pervades the lands of the Saha world. Upon returning to the sublime abode, I only see the monastic grounds and in the pure central hall, I only see the eaves and corridors. World Honored One, that is how the seeing is. At first, its substance pervaded everywhere throughout the one realm, but now in the midst of this room, it fills only one room. Does the seeing shrink from great to small or do the walls and eaves press in and cut it off? Now I do not know where the meaning in this lies and hope the Buddha will let fall his vast

[33:05]

compassion and proclaim it for me thoroughly. So Ananda is really getting really into this whole thing here. You have to imagine that sometimes, once in a while, Ananda and the Buddha can be in these heavenly realms together, these meditators realms, where they can see vast universes. It is like if you look through a telescope, you can see, I mean think about it, a little tiny eye this big, made of who knows what, can see with the aid of a little lens galaxies and stars, billions, I do not know what, millions, tens of thousands, how many, light years away, anyway far away, you can see. This little eye can see really far away, right? I mean it is amazing when you think about it. You would think it would have a range, like you could see five miles, but not. But actually with a little aid there, you can see

[34:06]

things that are amazing. It is amazing to think about it. So yeah. Well, the reference you just used raises the whole thing, which may be irrelevant to this point in the sutra, which is when you are talking about seeing something that is any light years away, you are seeing things that are actually, I am not a scientist, so I am not even sure how to explain it, but if you are seeing something that is a light year, it may not even exist anymore and you are seeing, I do not know whether it is the residue or just the way it has come through space. Well, you are seeing it. I mean, I suppose the same is true all the time. If I am seeing you, I am not really seeing you, I am a little bit off, right? So you are really seeing it. But you are right, it might. But I never understood what that means exactly. It does not make any sense in human terms to say, I am seeing something now, but it actually has not existed for 10 million years. Well, that is true mathematically, but what does that really mean?

[35:07]

I mean, I am seeing you too, but you do not exist either. The person I am seeing has ceased to exist, right? Well, maybe not. No, no, it is true. I mean, you came back, but at the moment that I am seeing you, you already changed. So it is always the case. Anyway, that is a side point. It is an important one, an interesting one. But anyway, the point is that seeing can be extensive and it also can be limited to this room. If there are no windows there, all I can see is this room. So Ananda is saying, like I say, he is really getting into this. He is saying, what I want to know is, what happened there? Did the walls cut off the seeing so that the seeing is actually quite extensive, but the walls cut it off? Or is it the fact that the seeing has shrunk down to the size of the room? So you might think, who cares? Or you might think, Ananda, why are you bringing this up? I mean, what does this have to do with anything? You might think that, but I cannot

[36:08]

help it. It says this in the sutra. I did not write this sutra. Do not blame it on me. Right, so anyway, that is what Ananda says. Are not you curious to hear what the Buddha would say to that? Of course you are. This is better than watching ER on TV. You know what ER is? People are so deprived. Emergency room. Emergency room? ER? Emergency. Yeah, it is a TV program about doctors. They have a lot of trouble. Yeah, or the giants who are playing even as we speak, and behind as usual. World honored one. That is how the seeing is. At first, did I say that already? That is how the seeing is. At first, its substance pervaded everywhere throughout one realm, but now in the midst of this room it fills only one room. Does the seeing shrink from great to small,

[37:11]

or do the walls and eaves press in and cut it off? Now I do not know where the meaning of this lies, and so on. Then the Buddha told Ananda, all the aspects of everything in the world, such as big and small, inside and outside, are classed as the dust before you. You should not say the seeing stretches and shrinks. Consider the example of a square container in which a square of emptiness is seen. In other words, empty space inside a square container. I ask you further, is the square emptiness that is seen in the square container a fixed square shape, or is it not a fixed square shape? If it is a fixed square shape, then when it is switched to a round container, then the emptiness in the round container would not be round. You would not be able to fit it in

[38:16]

it, because it would not be square. If it is not a fixed shape, then when it is in a square container, it should not be a square-shaped emptiness. You say you do not know where the meaning lies. The nature of the meaning is thus. How can you speak of its location? So you see, Ananda cannot escape, just like the rest of us, the idea of seeing as being this thing. He is saying, like seeing as this beam, somehow. Like what happens when there are walls? Is the beam cut off, or is the beam shrunk, or what? Buddha is saying, by using this example, it is not that kind of a thing, Ananda. Just like the square container. When you have a square vessel, it could be empty space. It could also be water. If you put water into a square vessel, you have a square of water. But it is not that the water is square. It is just that the vessel is square. So it is not that the seeing is limited or not limited by the spaciousness

[39:16]

or non-spaciousness. It is just that seeing has no substance, no shape, no form, no thingness to it. So it seems to be different depending on the shape of the container, but it is not really. Just like the empty space is not round or square, which we would all agree, right? The empty space. Consciousness is like space. You can't say it is round or square. It has no location. Ananda, if you wish there to be neither squareness nor roundness, you would only need to take the container away. The substance of emptiness has no shape, and so you should not say that you would also have to take the shape away from the emptiness. Anyway, let me stop there. We can go on, but I will stop there and just read you some material from the case 94, and then we will see. We will discuss this. If there is anything to discuss, it may be beyond discussion. So clear

[40:21]

and obvious and useless. There is nothing to say. The pointer to this case is... So this is interesting, to consider what our Zen ancestors have to say about this sort of thing. The one phrase before sound is not transmitted by a thousand sages, which means the teaching before sound, the words before words are ever spoken, is not transmitted. Even if there were a thousand Buddhists, it is not transmitted. The single thread before our eyes is forever without a gap. Pure and naked, bare and clean, the white ox on open ground. The mind, the nature of mind, the ground of mind. Eyes alert,

[41:28]

ears alert, the golden-haired lion. Leaving this aside for a moment, tell me, what is the white ox on open ground? What is the mind? So we want to think that true Buddhadharma is something that we could get. Somebody knows, has realized this thing, and they're going to transmit it to us. So we're going to study Buddhism and we're going to get it. But the real dharma is not transmitted, cannot be transmitted. There's no gap in which we could name it. So what is the mind? This untransmittable mind. And then the case simply says, the Shurangama scripture says, when I do not see, why do you not see my not seeing? If you see my not seeing, naturally that is not the characteristic

[42:33]

of not seeing. If you don't see my not seeing, it is naturally not a thing. How could it not be you? This is pretty much what we just read. And the commentary to the case, I won't bother to read because it basically just repeats, quotes the sutra in greater length, just as we've done, not necessarily adding any more explanation. But the poem says, the whole elephant or the whole ox as blinding cataracts, they're no different. Adepts of all time have together been naming and describing. If you want to see the yellow faced old fellow right now, every atom of every lamb lies halfway there. So the whole elephant refers to the old story that everybody knows about the elephant,

[43:34]

the blind people looking at the elephant. You know that story. One thinks it's an elephant shaped like a tail. The other one thinks an elephant shaped like a foot. Another one thinks the elephant shaped like a tusk. They're all right and they're all wrong. So how can you see the whole elephant, the whole of reality? The whole ox, and usually the idea of the whole elephant is the truth. The image is that the partial ones are partially true. What we need to strive for is to see the whole elephant. The whole ox is a saying from the Chuang, there's a famous thing about this butcher, who is such a skillful butcher, that he has a very sharp knife. Like a cartoon on TV where, like this, he completely butchers the ox all in a stack. Can you imagine a cartoon and then there's this big ox and then a flurry of spiral little lines and then before

[44:37]

you know it, and then the sound effect, before you know it, there's a stack of neat little steaks there. And he's standing there with a smile on his face and because he is so in harmony and in tune with the way that the ox is put together, that his knife immediately does this before anybody even sees it. And furthermore, the knife never loses sharpness because it's so perfect, harmony. So the great butcher butchers the whole ox. So being able to do that, of course, is also an image of being in tune with the Tao. So seeing the whole elephant and butchering the whole ox, which are usually taken to be, this is what we're really trying to do. This is what we're really after. Here it says, these are like blinding cataracts over the eyes. This is like, not only, you always thought this was what you're trying to do, but actually this is just blindness on top of blindness. Adepts of all time have together been naming and describing. So that's why in Zen they

[45:45]

always talk about teachers flapping their lips and things like that, meaninglessly yapping about things like the Shurangama Sutra. It's really hilarious. Think about it. This is what I do. I mean, I think it's kind of wonderful. And I'm very aware of the fact that it's totally useless and meaningless. And yet we have to do this. But we should know what we're doing. We should be aware. And if we think, any one of us, especially me, should have the illusion that we're now telling you of something that you should now think about and know and it's going to make a difference and so forth, then we're really a horse's ass. We're really. So adepts of all times have been doing this. Just all teachings, in other words, are just more blindness on top of blindness. If you want to see the old yellow-faced fellow right now, who of course is none other than

[46:45]

the Buddha, because the Buddha, this is not a racial slur on the part of these Chinese guys, this is because the Buddha has golden skin. So rather than say, you know, golden skin Buddha, they say yellow-faced old fellow. If you want to see the yellow-faced old fellow right now, every atom of every land lies halfway there. And usually, again, it's a sort of a reversal of the usual teaching, which is in every atom, the Buddha is there. All of the limitless. Fresh and new. And every moment you strive to understand and don't. It's also a great mystery. Yeah, it's a big mystery. It's a wonderful thing. And so when you say, woe is me. What a boob I am. I don't understand anything. Then you should say, thank God. How nice. Because if I did understand something, then I would be sure to be wrong. Now at least I don't

[47:48]

understand anything. At least I'm in tune with reality. And even that's going too far, saying too much. But this is, you know, so anything we say is wrong. And as long as we recognize that, we have a certain kind of freedom in living, right? In my later years, I know, I'm sure, myself, although as usual, all my things, I'm sure about it, based on no evidence whatsoever, any knowledge or wisdom, but just this sort of private certainty that when it says in whatever, wherever it says this, that don't make up standards on your own, you know what it really means is, there are no standards. When you hear that, you think, don't make up standards on your own. Listen to somebody else's standards. There's this other standard you should be paying attention to. Just don't be selfish and stupid and make up your own standards. Go and listen to Buddha's standards.

[48:48]

I don't think it means that. I think it means there are no standards. And the fact that there are no standards doesn't mean that therefore it's all relative, nothing matters. No, there is definitely truth. And it's not fooling around. It's very consequential. It's just that you can't say what it is, ever. And as soon as you say it, it's already dust in your mouth. So if you know that, then you have respect, right? It also means that you have to be completely paying attention all the time, because you can't say, I know the standard, so I know it's there. You have to be attentive to what's the standard at this time. Totally. And every person who opens their mouth in front of you, they're telling you the truth. You're hearing the truth from that person. You can't not respect them. And everything you see and hear, everything that comes in the doors of the senses, is a new Buddha Dharma fully there and not entirely there. So it's a very radical thing

[49:50]

to live that way and to really know that that's the case. So that's how our Zen ancestors treat that saying from the Shurangama Sutra. And you see, that's what got me into reading the Shurangama Sutras and seeing how important it was to the people who compiled and commented on the Buddha's record. So yeah, let's talk for a while. I was just thinking about how when we see redwood trees over and over, sometimes we get insulted. You know, redwood tree, I don't want to see that again. But certain thoughts that go through our mind, we think, I don't want to see this thought again. This can't be right. You're just appreciating everything that manifests. And so much of the time, I know I don't appreciate everything that manifests in these categories. But when I see another grass, I don't say, I'm sick of you. And if I see another grass, I love it. But the same thing comes to my mind that's unpleasant or

[50:56]

painful. And I'm sure it's not to be appreciated. Right, exactly. And I think that one of the, to me, one of the most helpful and profound insights of the Buddhist teaching is just what you're saying, that the fact that fundamentally there is no difference between a thought that arises in your mind and a redwood tree. Both are manifestations of Buddha's mind. And just as you say, we, by our own habit, say our thoughts are not as noble as a redwood tree. But even our afflictive thoughts are as noble as a redwood tree. Think about it. Think about it. I mean, what an amazing, start with one of those planets up there we were talking about before. One of those planets

[51:59]

that maybe there's a little water and maybe there's some sub-microscopic living things on that planet. So think of what has to happen in order for that living, sub-microscopic living thing to evolve and change over how much time into being a creature like a human being who has a thought. A thought in the human being's mind, to me, is absolutely every bit as magnificent and unbelievable as a redwood tree. More unbelievable. So, and we don't look at it that way. We tend to, like you say, denigrate and limit our own moments of consciousness as though they were somehow not important or worthy. Yeah. So, great to have a practice of keeping such things in mind, huh? Yeah. Yeah, and I remember a talk you gave some time ago in which you talked about that we seem to have

[53:06]

the need to justify ourselves. It's not enough just to know our lives, but we have to justify ourselves, relating to praise and blame. And then you were saying earlier the significance of the study, if we can live in our absent perception in this deep way, perhaps we won't need this justification. And yet we have to act. It's not enough to just be perceiving. I mean, I guess I'm having difficulty staying grounded. Do you see that? I'm still having a question about this justification and what is going on there. Well, yes, when you were talking,

[54:11]

it reminded me of one time I said to Kadagiri Roshi, you know, like, Kadagiri Roshi, what do you do all day? And he said, well, you know, I go to Zazen and I cook a meal and maybe I see some students or something. And so what if nobody's around? Then what do you do? He said, well, I take a nap. I thought, gee, that was really great to take a nap. But no, you have to do something. You couldn't just perceive, spend all day like, you can't, you know, because you have a body. Many things naturally come from that. And also because you have consciousness, if you appreciate the teachings of the Buddha, you have love, right, in your heart. So you have consciousness, you have a body, you have love in your heart. All this means that it's necessary for human beings to

[55:14]

act. But it's one thing to act because of your love and knowing you have a body and knowing you have a mind. It's one thing to act out of that. And it's another thing to act out of some driven sense of need to justify your life through your actions. So we do act, and hopefully we do acts that are good and not bad, acts that are helpful and not unhelpful. But we don't do those things out of need to justify our lives. You can be like Kadagiri Roshi, well, nothing going on, take a nap. You know, I'm real busy, but I goof off plenty. There's nothing else to do, I just goof off, why not? But I know that feeling of, I can't goof off, gosh. But, you know. Am I doing the right thing? Yeah, yeah, right, am I doing the right thing? So, you know, we're reflective, that's part of being human, right, we have to think about that. But it's just a question of, it's maybe not so different from, the difference between

[56:17]

being tortured by, what's the right thing to do? And having a healthy sense of, I should worry, I should think, you know, I should think about the right thing to do, in a case where there's question. You know, there's not a big difference in a way between those two things, but it's all the world of difference, right? Just like there may not be a very big difference between doing good to justify your life and doing good out of a beautiful sense of love for your life and the life of others. There may not be too much difference between those two things, and there isn't that much difference, but it makes a world of difference inside. Yeah, so I think that's our practice, is to try to walk over the little bridge that connects those two things, go from one to the other. I think sometimes we can feel very clear in our vision, and not feel the need for any kind of justification. And we could be dead wrong, in the sense that sometimes, even when

[57:27]

you don't think you need it, sometimes somebody gives you another perspective, point of view, and wow, it just kind of really transforms your consciousness, and you realize you were looking at things in a very wrong way. So, I mean, there's something to consensual validation, too. I mean, the standard shouldn't, I think, always be self-justification, not needing outside justification. I think a certain amount of, you know, being sure you're living in the same world with others, where you're not going off on a... Yeah, well, of course, in the light of this Sutra, these categories wouldn't hold, the categories of self and other. So, it wouldn't be a question of, I'm only thinking my own thoughts, because, well, the truth of the matter is, when you think about it, what you just said, what's the difference between that and a thought in my mind? That's now in my mind, right? So, what kind of a stupid person would I be, if I thought to myself, well, what comes out of this skull, I'm going to think and believe,

[58:31]

but this is somebody else over there, and I'm going to discount that, never mind about that. That would be really... I would be cutting off most of my life, right? Because most of my life is perceiving that which is supposedly outside of myself. I mean, except for the times when I'm looking in the mirror, or like sitting there thinking what I'm thinking, you know, the rest of the time I'm stimulated by things, and people, and events, and vision, and sight, sound, that's coming from so-called outside my body. That's my life, that's who I am at that time, right? When you're speaking and I'm listening to you, then I'm the same, I am you, you are me, at that time. So, I don't need to think about justifying my, you know, it's just reasonable that whatever I'm surrounded by is my life, too. But you may think you have the broad picture. Yeah, yeah, of course, of course. That means if you look at things like that, then you realize that you're always getting good advice from everybody, right? Exactly.

[59:32]

Exactly, yeah. Right, I'm agreeing with you. And since we, you know, we have to act as if we know truth, even though it's unknowable. Yeah. You know, it seems to me it's good to keep your ears open, hear what other people have to say. For sure, for sure, yeah, especially, yeah, that's right. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. What else? Oh, a forest of hands. Catherine, Catherine and then David and Jeff. Is Daikon feeling better? I don't know how he's feeling. I haven't, wasn't able to reach him today. He's in the hospital. He's going to have to have the operation that we knew that he was going to have to do. They're trying to figure out if they can schedule it so that he doesn't have to leave the hospital and can just do it. But it's a serious operation. But they do it all the time, and we expect that it will be successful. He has a, we know that he has a heart valve problem, and it's some kind of a thing where the valve should open a certain amount,

[60:37]

and it's not opening nearly enough. And there was a kind of thing, they were measuring it, and they were going to, they were saying, well, when it gets to this, opening is this small, we have to operate and somehow widen it. And he was on the edge, and he recently had a heart episode, which now indicates that he needed the operation. So two centimeters is supposed to open, it's opening 0.7. Right, that's what I heard, yeah. And I don't know exactly what the operation is, if it's a replacement of the valve, or is it a replacement? Yeah. Did they put in an artificial one? Or an animal one? Well, I have a cousin who's, you know, I don't know how old he is now, but he's probably under 60, and he's had this replacement valve done twice. And he plays tennis, he runs around, you know. And then Phil Whelan had it also, I don't know if it's the same valve, but Phil Whelan also had a replacement valve. Breck. Who did?

[61:39]

Breck Jones. Oh, yeah? Yeah. So, you know, but it's a serious operation. Dana? When we first came in, did you say that all experience is subjective? I don't remember if I said that. We were talking about two people looking at the same thing, each one has their own subjective experience. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah. I don't know what I'm getting my, this is a very leading question. What are you just getting me into? Go ahead, go ahead. I was just wondering if you really thought that was true. Because what does that say about intimacy? Yeah. Yeah, I think that we don't really know. I think that we don't really know what another person is thinking or feeling. We can imagine based on our own thinking or feeling, but I think

[62:41]

that fundamentally, we don't really know. But at the same time, I think that the source of intimacy is not, in fact, I would say myself that the source of intimacy is the recognition of what I just said. Because as long as I imagine that I know what you're thinking and feeling and experiencing, then I'm going to be basically making you up in my own image. And then being intimate with the image that I've created of you. If I really respect you, I know that I don't really understand you. Now, intimacy to me is the recognition that we share being. So that the boundary between my subjectivity and your subjectivity is a limited perspective boundary. And in that limited perspective, I have no idea. But on the level of being itself, you and I share being. We are as intimate as water with itself. And when I live my life

[63:44]

with a body-mind recognition of that level of being, then I think that we flow together beautifully and with harmony. Even though on another level, on a relative level, on a limited perspective level, I have no idea what you're really thinking. And we can never know. We can never know whether we do or don't know. We probably have to make some educated guesses now and then. Yeah, to communicate. And then we talk to each other and say, is that right? I think you're feeling this. Is that what you're feeling? And somebody says, yeah, you're right. But then personally, I have to say that not only don't I know what you're feeling, I have no idea what I'm feeling. If I really ask myself truly, what am I feeling? I find that I'm feeling so many things at the same time that are contradictory. And I also have a very strong sense that all those contradictory

[64:46]

things that I'm feeling don't exhaust the other feelings that are also there that I'm not aware of. So I think one has to be very humble, not only about not understanding someone else, but one is a mystery to oneself, I think. Anyway, I'm just crazy, I guess, but I feel that way. Sometimes I think I'm losing my mind listening to this. You mean with the idea that you think you understand what I'm talking about and you begin to think you're losing your mind? We're talking about one of the imponderables or something like that. But you seem to be using the words seeing and perception interchangeably, and I wonder if they really are interchangeable, or is there more to perception than just the seeing? I mean, because where does reflection come in into that too? As you perceive something, as you see something, and we fit it in based on all our experience and down to your cellular level

[65:49]

neurons and synapses. I'm just wondering if you could comment on that. Well, we're getting down to kind of terminology, and I think that when I'm saying seeing, I'm including all of that in the act of seeing, because I don't think you see something until you... the seeing is always informed by past experience, projection, and all that. That's why we know that we're not seeing the same thing that the other person is seeing, because we have all sorts of affective projections and history around things that we're seeing. So if you and I look at a cup on a table, and I know that we're seeing different things. You're seeing a cup on a table based on how many thousands of hours of making cups. I'm seeing a cup on a table based on, you know, I've broken a few. Right, which keeps you a business. But it's a different experience, right? We must be having

[66:56]

a different experience. And on a minute level, that's true. We always have. We bring into the table, so to speak, different experiences. So the act of seeing includes all that experience. But the brightness of the seeing, the mechanism that enables us to see anything at all, is limitless, and has no distinguishing features, as we just read in the Sutra. It's like if we don't turn the light on, neither one of us is going to see that cup at all. We see only darkness. Once we turn the light on, we both see a cup based on our individual karma. And since we share a certain amount of karma, since we're both human beings, this cup that you're seeing, within the circle of this cup that you're seeing, there's a smaller circle that I'm also seeing. Or we can agree that it sounds like the same thing. So we can talk to

[67:56]

each other about the cup, even though we have a vastly different experience of it. There's enough overlap that we can communicate about it. And you might say, would you give me that cup? And I'd give it to you. And it's worked pretty well, even though what I gave you is not what you asked for. And also, you could see a cup on the table, and I could see a table under a cup. Yeah, right. Or I could see a Chinese cup, and you could see it, you know, I don't know what, yeah. I think I just have to really study the painting, because one way I get fooled is, I just think about Michael Sawyer and how he's changed his eye to see, to do the painting. And I think his seeing has more brightness than my seeing. But I just have to investigate that, to understand that what I think of as his seeing is the same quality of brightness versus energy. And when we think of skill in a perception, then it seems more like a thing, you know.

[69:03]

Yeah, yeah. More graspable. Well, maybe it is graspable, because look at that person can really do more than that. Yeah, but the essence of the seeing, nature, is not different. The light, when the light, you know, like I say, when the light turns on, that's the same light for you as for Michael or anybody. And I think you bring up a wonderful point, though, and one of the reasons why I started studying Buddhism in the first place is because I think that artists and so on, people who want to live deeply in that way through art or other means, are trying to swim back to the source of this light. And so, but if the only way that you can do that is through your art, or whatever it is you're doing, then that means that the rest of the time when you're not doing that, you're in a mess, potentially. And a lot of artists, if you study their lives,

[70:04]

you know, it's not unusual for artists to be in a mess. And I thought to myself, wanting to be an artist myself, I thought, well, is it, you know, but is it worth it to, like, hurt all these other people and so forth? And I thought, well, isn't there another way of doing it? And I think that studying the Dharma is the way of every person in every moment of consciousness finding that place in our lives with full, giving ourselves fully to our experience as an artist does. So that's what I think is great about studying the way. Because it's not about artists, it's a human thing to live at that level of depth, and we all want that. Yeah. When two people recognize the emptiness in an object, that other thing is empty? Well, yes. In fact, this is, it doesn't say, this is not at all emphasized in these teachings here,

[71:09]

the mind-only teachings, but if you read the Emptiness Sutras, they talk about omniscience in all knowledge. Because, yeah, in the emptiness of phenomena, we're at that level that Dana and I were talking about a minute ago, being itself. We don't actually see the emptiness. Yeah. It's not an object, right? It's not something that you can see, but, yeah. But appreciating, recognizing, or somehow attuning oneself to the empty nature of phenomena, then they say that this is omniscience, that you know everything at once. The mind of the Buddha is an omniscient mind, not in the sense that the Buddha knows all the details and can predict the future or something like that, but that the essence of reality is apprehended in such a way that nothing is unknown. Yeah. Is there a place for those who believe about psychic sensation, psychic awareness?

[72:13]

Well, I would think that there would be no problem. Of course, there would be all sorts of phenomena that are not explained or contained in the usual categories. So, to me, there's no problem about that or denial of that. But I think the question would always be, does it help us to practice? And I think a lot of times the fascination of psychic phenomena, soothsaying, fortune-telling, astrology, and so forth, militates against the straightforwardness that's necessary for practice. But there's nothing about it that is inherently bad, or one wouldn't argue that it exists or doesn't exist, or something like that. Somebody I know who works as a psychic described it as that, this is really secondhand, I'm trying to explain what she said, that there's like a crack in

[73:24]

time and space, and that it's the psychic ability to see through that. Yeah, yeah. I heard something the other day that was, I sort of knew this intuitively, but I never heard this before. It's very interesting on the subject of psychics, you know, it has nothing to do with anything, since you brought it up. This was reported from a person who's a psychic, and not only is a psychic, but runs a school, trains psychics. This is true, no, no, this is true, and I know them, I've heard there's a famous psychic, because I know the name, but I won't say who it is. Anyway, she said that most of the people in her school who are psychic and are being helped to develop the gift of being psychic, most of them are people who were terrorized and traumatized as children.

[74:27]

Isn't that interesting? And the reason why is because, since they're as children, they had to develop, for self-defense, they had to develop an ability to sort of sense, you know, when daddy is coming home, or mommy is coming. They're not home yet, they're miles away, but I better like get it together, because they're coming. So that because of the trauma of, you know, being surprised by the appearance of the people, these people who would be not easy to get along with, and so on, they would have to be super intuitive about what was going on, without stuff that was not said and not indicated in any way, they would have to know for their own self-defense. Isn't that interesting? That's frightening. Yeah, but it makes sense, doesn't it make sense? And I know that, and this is the problem with the gift, and the gift comes from this kind of instability in your life, and then you don't have some groundedness in the gift, and some training in it, and some help with it, it can be very,

[75:34]

even more destabilizing, you know, because it is so unusual and confusing. So that's why it's probably good that there's a training school or something, you know, for people who have this ability, that they can learn how to work with it in a positive way for their own lives and others. Even in the sutras it mentions telepathy, and seeing past lives, and things like this. Oh yeah, yeah, well there's a whole list of powers like this that meditators are supposed to get as a by-product of their meditation practice. Isn't it the jhanas that we've been talking about? Yeah, yeah, the full development of the jhanas would have these by-products, although interestingly in Zen, they don't talk about this, because... It's another ego trap. Well, Zen is a kind of a different, a little different style of meditation. If you ever read, Thich Nhat Hanh has an interesting take on this, where he says that, of course, as it's well known, jhanic practices pre-Buddhist,

[76:38]

you know, Buddha didn't invent the jhanic practices, those trans-states practices were around with the yogis before Buddha, and Thich Nhat Hanh argues that these, the practice of the jhanas, other people disagree, but he argues that the practice of the jhanas, jhanic states, is extraneous to Buddhism and counterproductive. And definitely in Zen, there is, I think, the idea that there's a sudden seeing and understanding of reality, not a gradual cultivation of trans-states. So there's a lot of Zen stories that are very uncomplimentary about special powers, like the famous story of Huangbo, who goes to the stream, you know, with another monk, and they're ready to, big raging, you know, kind of river, and they're standing there wondering what to do, and the other monk lifts up the skirts of his robe and sort of sails across the river,

[77:39]

like a little sailboat walking on the water, like Jesus did, you know, and so Huangbo is standing there watching this, you know, and when the guy gets to the other side, Huangbo says, if I knew that you would look like this, I would have never come this far with you, and he goes away in disgust. Something like that, yeah. So in other words, look, we Zen guys, we don't care about this stuff. We're not into that. It's not about that. It's not about special powers. It's counterproductive. Forget it. That's probably just a good excuse for the fact that we don't have special powers. But I thought Zen came from the Chinese which comes from jhana. Well, jhana in the wider sense of meditation practice, rather than specific sense of developing those trance states. I sort of go along with Thich Nhat Hanh on that point myself.

[78:44]

Form of intoxication? Well, yeah, it has that danger. I mean, I think meditation is fun and it's cool and everything, but yeah, you could see where you carried too far. I have a different question. We've been talking about subjective modes of seeing, but I'm wondering about more scientific modes of observation, of like saying being able to we can drop an object and measure how fast it falls and you would do the same measurement and see the same thing. Where's the subjectivity in there? Is that being able to agree on that bodies fall at the same rate or something scientific, objectively verifiable like that? Is that realm where you're saying our karma overlaps enough that it looks the same way? I think that would all be within the sphere of the relative level, because even with scientific

[79:50]

measurement and so on, there's the whole thing about how at a certain level of measurement, refinement of measurement, the measuring tool gets in the way of measurement. You can't really measure anything. Yeah, so there's that. And then, there's some other point that flew out of my head. We have to actually have that. I mean, we're standing in the road and the car is coming towards us. We don't have to agree that that is a car coming towards us. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right, right. Maybe that's it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, yeah. I mean, conventional reality is no small potatoes. It's important. Yeah. Okay, I'm going to just look through here and see if there's any, in the last few minutes, if there's any points that I would like to bring out from this rest of this part here, because I think next time we're going to more or less start with the handout I gave you. So I want to see if there's anything important that we have left out here.

[80:52]

Nick, are there any more copies of this? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, the sort of punchline of all this, as I was saying before, from beginningless time, this is the Buddha talking, from beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things. And having lost the original mind, are turned around by things. That is why they contemplate bigness and smallness in the midst of all this. If you can turn things around, then you are the same as the Buddha. With the body and mind perfect and bright, you are an unmoving place of the way. So, indeed, we think of ourselves as something, a thing. But we limit the vastness of our unknownness to ourselves and others.

[81:59]

We reduce to a certain persona that we take to be our real self. And because of that, we've lost our original birthright, this limitless being that we all are. And now we're spun around by the things of the world. This is sort of Buddha's reacting to Ananda's talking about the bigness or the smallness of seeing. And Ananda, once again, thinking that seeing is a thing. If you can turn things around, instead of being turned around by things, if you can turn things around, then you are the same as the thus-come-one, and you are an unmoving place of the way. And Ananda still doesn't understand, and has further questions. Let's see. I'm just going to go through this quickly. Great! Again!

[83:12]

He never told us anything, right? How could that be? Well, I think we did a good job there, I think. That's enough. Why don't we just stop here a little early? And are we meeting next week? I think so, huh? I think next week. Is next week our last class, or do we have one after that? One after that. Okay. June something like that. It is Memorial Day. Oh, yeah. Well, somebody bring that up next week, and we'll discuss if there's a problem with having class on Memorial Day. Oh, the next class is Memorial Day. But it's observed on Monday. Yeah, today's Tuesday. Yeah, today's Tuesday. So it's the day after. Okay, so, thank you. May our intention be with you.

[84:19]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ