The subject of our study this practice period is Keizan Zenji's Denko Roku, which translates as transmitting the light. I'm going to talk a little bit about Khezan first. And probably many of you already know about Khezan. I think some of you don't. Probably some of you don't really know much about Dogan. But Khezan was Dogan's fourth Dharma successor. Kaizan's dates are 1268 to 1325. So Dogen was born in 1300. You can always tell how old Dogen was. 1200 by what the date is.

[01:13]

So sometimes Dogen is known as the father of Soto Zen and Keizan the mother. But as we know, Dogen was interested, but was very severe actually, and his Zen was very pure. And when he first came back from China after studying with Tendon Yojo, he was very open to lay people and many of his first works, first written works, were addressed to lay people as well as monks. But as he, as Dogen became more and more involved in monastic practice in Japan and trying to establish monastic practice, he directed himself more toward the monk's practice and less toward lay practice.

[02:44]

So his monastic practice was very strong and continued to be strong for several generations, although You know, after Dogen, his Dharma heirs were... there was a lot of infighting and disagreements about what they were about and who was who. And by the time Kaizan appeared, some 60 years later, after Dogen, More than that, a hundred years later. Soto's end had become rather diffused. So Keizan was actually the person that brought together the loose ends and established the Soto school.

[04:02]

Dogen didn't care so much about establishing the Soto school so much as just establishing the Dharma. But Keizan was the one who actually created the school and made it available to lay people more. And he sent his disciples out into the countryside to establish small temples And this was one of his major contributions. And so in Japan, in the Soto school, Dogen and Keizan are considered sort of side by side. In America, when Soto Zen came to America, we only learned about Dogen. not so much about Keizan, because Keizan was mostly important to Japanese Zen, not so important to American Zen as Dogen.

[05:15]

So, you know, when we have our founder ceremony once a month, we put up the scroll and it has Dogen, Shakyamuni Buddha, and Bodhidharma. Suzuki Roshi made the scroll and it has those three names. But in Japan it would be Dogen, Shakyamuni, and Keizan. So he felt that Bodhidharma was more important in this kind of lineage than Khezan would be, as far as an eminent figure. But Dogan and Khezan are very important, both very important, I think, for our understanding. And we've studied Dogan for quite a long time, and not enough, but

[06:24]

we have some understanding of Dogen. And these translations, two translations, one by Cleary and one by Cook, just appeared at the same time. So it's a good time to start studying Keizan's works. So this is a major work of Keizan, Zen Master. And what he's done here has taken the Chinese and Indian lineage that we chant every day and written his commentary or tesho on the stories. So in these two translations, Cleary's translation is just a straight translation. There are no footnotes, and there are some parts that are left out, actually. And he tends to paraphrase more than Cook.

[07:29]

Cook is more literal, tends to be more literal, and he has footnotes. And he divides each one of these what we'll call cases, or stories, into first a case, he makes it into a koan. He makes the story of each life into a koan. So first is the case, just like it would be in the Mulan Kong, and then he has the circumstances around which the case is moves, and then he has his tesho, which is his commentary, and then at the end, a poem. So this is the way that Cook divides it. divides the story, which is actually the way it's divided, but it isn't stated.

[08:30]

Cook states, makes that clear in his outline. So that's why I prefer to use Cook's translation with Cleary's backup. Sometimes I like the way Cleary translates something better than the way Cook does, but mostly I like Cook's translation. I think he put more into it. So, if you've ever been around long enough to have read the Vajrabodhi See, do you remember the Vajrabodhi See? It's still printed. It's printed by the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, Master Hua's group. who is now up north in the city of 10,000 Buddhists, used to be in San Francisco, Gold Mountain Monastery. And every time they print their publication, they have one of the stories of the ancestors.

[09:39]

And so these stories are go all the way back from Shakyamuni Buddha to all the Chinese ancestors. And they don't include the Japanese ancestors because it's Chinese. But the Japanese include all the Chinese and Indian and Japanese up to Kaizan. at Tosahara, and now in the city, we're chanting the whole lineage up to the Japanese lineage, up to Suzuki Roshi. So, these were stories that were handed down to Kaizan from the Chinese, and a story of each one of the ancestors, and they're mostly legendary. And he's added his commentary, which is his taisho.

[10:43]

And if you try to base these stories on fact, you'll be very disappointed. Because they're really stories that probably have some basis in fact, But the point of the story is to make a point, not to bring out what actually happened. So this is so the most legends, of course. So the Indian stories are much more legendary, and they usually involve magic and fantasy and superstition and sorcery.

[11:54]

Most of the Indian ancestors, before they met their Buddhist teacher, usually were sorcerers with a large following of pupils. And when you read these, you'll see that that's so. And then they met their Buddhist teacher. And after meeting their Buddhist teacher, they realized that sorcery was very limited. And so they gave up their sorcery and became Buddhist ancestors. And Chinese ancestors, most of that disappears. You know, the Chinese are also very superstitious, but it doesn't appear so much in the Chinese ancestors. It gets less and less subtle, it becomes more what we call normal, if you want to think of it that way.

[12:58]

But anyway, the stories all have a point. And as Alan expressed it to me, he said each one is archetypal. They are all examples of some aspect of the teaching. So there's a teaching in each one of these stories. That's the main thing. So don't look for facts, look for the teaching. So there are quite a number of stories and we only have six, I think it's five. So to select the stories is very difficult because some of them are so wonderful. They're all wonderful actually and the more I read them and study them. The more I want to present each one, but since I only have five times, what I will do is have two Indian stories, two Chinese, and one Japanese.

[14:16]

So, I want to start with Shakyamuni Buddha, which is the first case. Does anyone need the Shakyamuni Buddha story? We don't have any more books, unfortunately. So as we progress here, you might want to buy one of these books. They're not very expensive. And my experience with Buddhist books is that you think that they're always going to be available, but at some point they go out of print. And then you're scrambling around looking for it. So I always urge people to, if you have a class, to buy a book. It's not that expensive. And a good Buddhist book is something that you read over and over.

[15:21]

And I think this one is one that, although you may not read it over and over now, you may read it over and over sometime. Don't look too hard in Berkeley for the Cook edition because you... Do you have them all? We bought all the ones the distributor had. I can call Los Angeles and see if we can get some more. Did you say you're proud of the ones you bought? Yeah, they went. The Cleary should be available, but... Okay. Do you have any questions about anything that I said or anything I left out? Very, very helpful.

[16:25]

Yeah. The introduction is very good. So what I'm going to do is read, and then I'll have some commentary as I read. And if you have any questions anywhere along the line, please feel free to ask any questions anywhere along the line. When I get to the teisho part, I'll ask you questions. So first I'll read the case, then the circumstances, which is fairly long, and then the teisho. So here's the case. Shakyamuni Buddha saw the morning star and was enlightened, and he said, I and the great earth and beings simultaneously achieve the way.

[17:27]

Now when he presents the case, the case is embedded in the circumstances. This is a kind of Japanese way of presenting something, which is very nice, poetic way. First they present the main thing without any And then they give you this background, and then you can see where the case is, where what they're presenting is in the background, and then the whole thing takes on a different flavor. So anyway, so this is the case. Shakyamuni Buddha saw the morning star and was enlightened. And he said, I and the great earth and beings simultaneously achieve the way. So it starts with Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment, when he sat under the bow tree, according to Buddhist legend. He sat zazen for a good number of days.

[18:30]

We don't know how many. Two weeks, a week, something. And when he saw the morning star, He made this proclamation. This is Zen legend. I in the earth and all beings simultaneously achieve the way. This is the way that Zen school understands it. And then, you know, when Buddha, well, After seven days, he was walking, of course, and he took seven steps, and he put one hand, one finger to the sky and one finger to the earth. He said, I alone am the world-honored one. So this I is very important in this case, when he says, I am the great earth.

[19:40]

So, if you look at the legend, when he was a baby, he said the same thing. When he was a young child, baby, he said, I and all beings... below the sky and above the earth, I alone am the world-honored one. And then here, when he becomes enlightened, he says, I and the great earth and beings simultaneously achieve the way, which is the same thing. And it looks egotistical until we understand what I is. So in the Taisho, Kaizan explains what he means by I. So Shakyamuni Buddha was of the Sun race in India.

[20:46]

Apparently there was a Sun race and a Moon race. The ancient legends of India talk about a race from the Sun and a race from the Moon. But it's not important for us. But he was of the Sun race in India. At the age of 19, he leapt over the palace walls in the dead of night, left everything behind, and at Mount Dantoloka, he cut off his hair. Subsequently, he practiced austerities for six years. Later, he sat on the adamantine seat where spiders spun webs in his eyebrows and magpies built a nest on top of his head. Reeds grew up between his legs as he sat tranquilly and erect, without movement, for six years. At the age of thirty, on the eighth day of the twelfth month, as the morning star appeared, he was suddenly enlightened. These words, in the above case, are his very first lion's roar. So for six years, if you read the story of Buddha's life, he was an ascetic for six years.

[21:56]

And there is this legendary account of getting down to eating one grain of rice a day and letting his hair grow, never washing, laying down and letting people pee on him and shit on him. He went through every kind of indignity in order to try and realize his nature. That's what it means when they said that spiders spun webs in his eyebrows and magmites built a nest on top of his head. Well, when he was sitting, he'd sit for long periods of time. And without moving, sitting for six years without movement doesn't mean he didn't get up. Just a kind of way of speaking, right? Mahavira, you know, at the same time as Shakyamuni was around, the Jaina leader Mahavira was

[23:16]

a contemporary of Buddha. And if you look at the statues of Mahavira, you see the vines growing up his legs. He just literally stood still for years without moving. Not so much Buddhist practice, more Jain practice. The Jains were actually more extreme, I think, than the Buddhists. The Buddhist priest has a staff with rings, and when he walks, the rings jingle. And the insects, you know, anybody that's down the road that doesn't want to be stepped on will get out of the way. But the giants have a little broom. and a dustpan, and they sleep, you know. They pay much more attention to that condition.

[24:23]

They're very concerned about being harmless, and they walk around without any clothes. So, the Jains were somewhat close to the Buddhists, but really not the same. and more acidic, I think. And lion's roar, you know, is like a shout. The arhats, when they became enlightened, they would give a lion's roar, a shout. And one of the prarajika offenses There were many offensive rules for Buddhist monks, 250 rules, but there were five rules which, if you broke these rules, you'd be expelled from the Sangha, killing a Buddha, killing, stealing, sexual misadventures.

[25:35]

saying that you were enlightened when you weren't. So he just shouted instead of saying it. Yeah, just proclaiming your kind of false attainment. So, if you're going to make the lion's roar, it better be genuine. So from that time on, for 49 years, he did not spend a day alone. but preach the Dharma for the assembly constantly. This kind of statement, didn't spend a day alone, is very Japanese. Japanese practice is very much together with people, and Japanese practice doesn't encourage practice on your own. As Americans, we kind of like the idea of practicing on our own.

[26:40]

And it's something that we do as one of the things that we do. But Japanese practice is very Sangha-oriented. And I think a lot of that comes from making effort not to be egotistical. When you're doing something with others, you're giving up your own personal attainment, idea of attainment, in order to do something with other people. That's very important for them. So he says, for that time on, for 49 years, he did not spend a day alone, but preached the Dharma for the assembly constantly.

[27:45]

He was never without a robe and a begging bowl. During that time, he preached to the assembly more than 360 times. I would think so. Later, he transmitted the treasury of the eye of the true Dharma to Mahakasyapa. So in this book, part of what this book is about is the transmission from one ancestor to another. And that's part of the emphasis is that the transmission of light is what one ancestor transmits to another. And it's something that is not really transmitted. But I'll talk about that later. And it has been passed down from Mahakasyapa through generation after generation to the present. Truly, it has been transmitted through India, China, and Japan. And of course, Southeast Asia, and Tibet, and many other places. But he just mentioned these three.

[28:46]

Of course, this is in the 13th century. 14th, 13th century. It has been transmitted through, okay. So the practices of his lifetime are the standard for his descendants. Even though he possessed the 32 marks and 80 minor marks, he certainly looked like an ordinary old monk and was no different from other people. This Buddhist legend, the Buddha has 32 marks. I don't know how old that legend is, but it was a kind of There were certain characteristics that were put together to identify a superhuman person, and among them were webbed feet and the hands going down past the knees, and I don't know

[29:54]

They're not important to us, but... If you're swimming, they are. What? If you're swimming, they would be. If you're swimming, they will be. No? Yes. I was thinking about that when I first read it, and I was getting very disconcerted that my toe wasn't longer than the big toe here, and all these different little things. But then I thought that there's so many marks that everybody's bound to have at least one, and that it gave me some personal comfort that, you know, some mark of a Buddha, and maybe not all of them together. I don't know if that's based on anything other than my own desire to be a Buddha or not, but maybe so. Well, this kind of legend comes out of, I think, comes out of separation, you know?

[31:00]

It comes out of... like Buddha is something apart from ordinary human being. That's where this kind of feeling comes from. So... I don't know exactly where the religion comes from, but it's... everything comes from that feeling, you know, that Buddha is... Buddha is different and has these certain kinds of characteristics which ordinary folks don't have. But Buddhism changed. And the mark of a Buddha is Buddha nature, not physical characteristics. And so everyone should be able to find that mark or that characteristic. If everyone can't find their characteristic, then Buddhism is only for those people with whipped feet and long hair. But, so he says, even though he possessed the 32 marks and the 80 minor marks, he's giving that credit.

[32:14]

He's not saying that's not so. He's saying, but even so, even though he had those, he certainly looked like an ordinary old monk and was no different from other people. So, that's very clever. Therefore, after his appearance in the world, throughout the three times of the true dharma, the counterfeit dharma, and the present collapsed dharma, You know about the three times? There's this legend that there are the three time periods after Buddha. The first 500 years was the time when people could actually practice Buddha's practice. The strength of Buddha's practice lasted for 500 years. This is the prediction. And after that, people would no longer be able to because they're so distant, distanced from Buddha, that it would be called the period of the counterfeit dharma, where people would practice something, but it wasn't the real thing.

[33:21]

Then there was the third period of the collapsed dharma, mapo, which fell just about the time of Dogon. and the end of which was just about the time of Dōgen. And people were very worried about it. And some people said, there's no way that we can practice because this is the era of Mapo, the third period. And of course, Dōgen said, don't worry about Mapo, just keep practicing. And Shinran said, well, there's no way that you can actually practice Buddhism in this day and age, so just chant the name of Buddha and ask to be born in pure land. So these are the kind of two poles that Japanese Buddhism fell into. One was dogen, hard practice, pure practice, never mind about mapo.

[34:31]

and Shinran's, because it's mapo, there's no way you can actually practice. And then there were the scholars in between who just studied Buddhism. So he's saying, therefore, after his appearance in the world throughout the three times of the true dharma, the counterfeit dharma, and the present collapsed dharma, those who emulate his teaching and conduct model themselves on his deportment, used what he used, and each moment, while walking about, standing in place, sitting or lying down, do as the Buddha did. So this is what he considers Buddhist followers, people who practice what Buddha practiced. In Japan, Japanese Zen, one way of practicing is to imitate the teacher. A very common way to practice. You observe the teacher and you just practice what the teacher does in the same way the teacher does.

[35:40]

And often there's very little instruction then. And they expect the student to observe and practice. And if they say something once, they expect the student to remember it. That's a kind of practice that is very common. Suzuki Roshi used to say, sometimes you can't tell the teacher from the student. But that kind of practice is like apprenticeship in a way. And when the student masters the teacher's dharma, or becomes exactly like the teacher, then the student moves out and progresses to developing his own way. That's very common.

[36:44]

So a student at some point becomes independent and no longer imitates the teacher, but finds his own way after absorbing the teacher And sometimes, in some of these cases, the teacher and the disciple become absorbed in each other. There's one place where they're actually one person and then two people. So a Buddha after Buddha, an ancestor after, I call it ancestor, I don't call it patriarch, ancestor after ancestor, have simply transmitted this so that the true Dharma is not extinguished. And this event clearly indicates this. Even though the method of expression, various stories, figures of speech, and words was different on more than 360 occasions during the 49 years when he preached,

[37:51]

They are nothing more than the expression of this principle. So, I take this principle to be as in the main case. Now, what is this event? Well, this event is the main case. If you come back to the beginning, he says, I am the great earth, this is enlightenment. Buddhism right now. So, this is next, this is Keizan's case show, or his commentary on the case. So, going back to the beginning, he says, this so-called in the main case.

[38:58]

The so-called I, in the main case, is not Shakyamuni Buddha. And Shakyamuni Buddha also comes from this I. So when he says, I and all beings, I is not me. That's what he's saying here. The so-called I, in the main case, is not Shakyamuni Buddha, but Shakyamuni Buddha also comes from this I. Not only does Shakyamuni come from it, but the great earth and beings also come from it. Just as when a large net is taken up, and all the many openings of the net are also taken up, When Shakyamuni Buddha was enlightened, the great earth and all beings were enlightened. Not just the great earth and beings, but all the Buddhas of the past, future and present were also enlightened.

[40:07]

So how does that happen? When I was enlightened, everything was enlightened at the same time. Past, future and present. It's very interesting. He says, when you take up a net, the holes also come up. It's really nice. Where do the holes come from? Where do the spaces come from? From the net. Yeah. Where does the net come from? From the eye. From the eye. Yeah, it comes from the eye. From the spaces. So, the spaces and the net are both important. Both. both part of the net. So, in fact, the I, the so-called I in the main case, is not Shakyamuni Buddha.

[41:11]

So he's not saying, when he says, I and all sentient beings, he's not talking about just himself. He's not referring to himself as the I. But it gets even more interesting. Not only does Shakyamuni come from it, but the great earth and beings also come from it. So there's something that everything comes from, right? Just as when a large net is taken up, and all the many openings of the net are also taken up. When Shakyamuni Buddha was enlightened, the great earth and all beings were enlightened. So there's a net, a network. When one part of the net is there, the whole net is there. So when Shakyamuni is enlightened, all beings are enlightened, past, present and future. This is like the net of Indra. All things are reflected in each knot, and each thing reflects all the other parts.

[42:18]

Would it be fair to say that the past, present and future and you can't have past, present and future. You can't have present without past and future. Yeah, you can't have present without past and future. But there's something, you know, when we talk about past, present and future, there's continuous time and discontinuous time. There's always continuous time. And continuous time is what we call now. Because whenever you want to wake up to the present, you always say, now. And you say it at any time. You said now in the past, you say now in the present, and you can say now in the future. But whenever you say now, it's only just now. That's continuous time.

[43:24]

It is just now. So past, present and future are all concluded in present time. But then there's discontinuous time. Yesterday, today, tomorrow, one o'clock, two o'clock. We divide time into pieces. But that's just our... that's the net that we lay over it. For example, Buddhism, past and present and future are all also Now. They're also now. Even though they exist in the past, present, and future. Past, future, and present. The timelessness of the dharma. Timelessness. Timelessness of the dharma. Then he says, since this is so, do not think that it was just Shakyamuni Buddha who was enlightened.

[44:32]

You must not see any Shakyamuni Buddha apart from the great earth and beings. Even high mountains, rivers, and their myriad forms flourish in great abundance. None are left out of Gautama's eye pupil. This is the way Dogon talks, and Keizan talks like Dogon. Although they're quite different, the way they present their material. The I-pupil means enlightened I. Buddha's enlightened I. All of you here are also established in the Buddha's I-pupil. Not only are you established in it, but rather it is enfolded within you. In other words, everything is established in enlightenment. Not only are you established in it, rather it is enfolded within you. Also, Gautama's eye pupil becomes the fleshly body.

[45:35]

It becomes the whole body of each person, standing like an 80,000 foot person. Therefore, do not think that from the past to the present there was a bright eye pupil, a distinct pupil. You are Gautama's eye pupil, and Gautama is the entirety of each of you. What he's saying here is that everyone is Shakyamuni Buddha. In our meal chant, we say, we pay homage to Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya Buddha. Dharmakaya, Vairochana Buddha, Sambhogakaya, Lochana Buddha, and Nirmanakaya, Shakyamuni Buddha. Nirmanakaya means the one who is like the source, which is ineffable.

[46:41]

And Sambhogakaya is like the spirit of Buddha. And nirmanakaya is the person. It's manifested. Buddha nature is manifested as a person. So, he says Gautama is the entirety of you. Each one of you is Buddha. So what we used to say in the original translation of that meal chain We say homage to the innumerable Shakyamuni, Nirmanakaya Buddhas all over the world. That was our original translation. Then it got shortened. But that's the feeling. is that each one has the possibility or the endowment of Shakyamuni Buddha.

[48:00]

It doesn't mean that everyone's realized their nature, but everyone has the endowment to realize it. That's what I feel like he's saying here. Alzheimer's, right people, becomes the flesh of the body. It becomes the whole body of each person standing like an 80,000 foot precipice in each. What is that 80,000 foot precipice? It's kind of like untouchable, you know, it's like unattainable in a way. Something that's really hard to scale. And also unshakable. Yeah, also unshakable. So, you know, Master Gensho said, the whole universe is the eye of a monk. Where were you difficult? That's a great thing.

[49:05]

So, then he goes on to say, if this is the way it is, what do you call this principle of enlightenment? Let me ask you, he's talking to the monks, let me ask you monks, does Bhutama become enlightened with you, or do you become enlightened with Bhutama? This, you know, refers to the statement that he made, I and all sentient beings become enlightened simultaneously. Do you become enlightened with him, or does he become enlightened with you? That's his question. If you say that you become enlightened with Gautama, or that Gautama becomes enlightened with you, this is not Gautama's enlightenment. Therefore, this is not the principle of enlightenment. If you want an intimate understanding of enlightenment, you should get rid of you and Gautama at once. and quickly understand this matter of I. I is the great earth and beings as end.

[50:23]

This starts getting really... sounds like Dogon. It does sound like Dogon. That's a different translation from Dogon. What does Clary say? Well, what does he say all together? Even so, I am together. are neither ones nor two. Even so, I and together are neither one nor two.

[51:43]

Yeah. And your skin, flesh, bones and marrow are all together. See, together and and, right? And the host inside the host is on. Yeah, that's pretty good. How could you both be transferred a translation that can work and it doesn't? Well, you see, this is the thing about translating. You think that all you have to do is transfer one. I know, but it doesn't work that way. So it's not easy to translate, especially when it gets into you know, something as subtle as this. It's very subtle thinking. Well, yes, but if, you know, if I'm familiar with Dogen, I think the and, because there's certain words like and,

[53:03]

what, how, and it that are impersonal. And if you ask a question, like you say, in this kind of subtle understanding, what is it? You'd think that that's a question. But actually, the answer is in the question. If you want to know what is it, drop the question mark. And the sentence becomes, what is it? So what becomes the subject? So here, and becomes the subject, right? And so you have this insignificant word that becomes the subject suddenly. We're not used to thinking that way. So together it sounds very logical. But and is nutty, according to, you know, it's not, to have and as a subject is very strange.

[54:15]

Maybe, I'm trying to guess at what you pointed to, and is like conjunction itself, it's like between objects, between, you know, being. And is and, and I think that when he's saying, and is not I, as the old philosopher Thomas, and and is not beings or the great earth, and is the conjunction, which is, and so together it would be less, it might be more understandable, but less, because together is implying, pointing us to these objects. Right. Right. It's like a witness. A what? Yeah, more like that. But the together is implied in the and. The together is implied in the and. It's like the bandleader.

[55:18]

It says and, but together is implied in the and. Together I think is a pronoun. That's why I'd be interested to know what the original was. But it couldn't be not together. So, together is irrelevant. It couldn't be separate, in other words. It's just Anne. Anne is similar to me as well as, and as well as is similar to together. Well, Anne usually means also, right? I don't know, like, when she said the conjunction, I think that makes a space between the two of them. Like, you know, the moment where There's a space between whatever's happening. There's nothing. There's an end. We just put that word in there, end, to put some kind of meaning to the space that brings things together. It just kind of separates things. Yeah.

[56:19]

Because the word also means the same. Means what? Same. Same, yeah. There's a slightly different translation, uh, from translation. people's enlightenment in detail, throw away Shakyamuni and you at the same time, and know that they are I. See, now here we go into some more subtle stuff, because And and I, he even throws away I. Right. Probably because there is no I. I mean, people are focusing on I. Well, I, it's not this I. It's not this I. So, I think we can probably get it from either a translation, you know. So, we kind of have to read between the lines. So, he says, if you want an intimate understanding of enlightenment, you should get rid of you and Gautama at once.

[57:30]

and quickly understand this matter of I. I is the great earth and beings as and. And is not I as the old fellow Gautama. So that's checking out both you and Gautama, which squares it clearly. Examine carefully, deliberate carefully, and clarify this I, capital I, and this and. Even if you clarify the meaning of I, but you fail to clarify and, you lose a discerning I. So, together is okay, too. Either way, it's just a different way of expression, but the meaning, I think, Not different. Whatever unites also separates.

[58:35]

That's right. That's the point. Is it the same or different? Is it separate or singular? That's also part of that. Well, let's go on a little bit. This being so, if it is, I and and are neither identical nor different. But as you say, they're not, are they the same or are they different? Truthfully, your skin, flesh, bones, and marrow are totally and, or together, as Cleary says. The lord of the house is I. That's buddha-nature.

[59:41]

Dharmakaya. It has nothing to do with skin, flesh, bones, and marrow, nor has it anything to do with the four elements or the five aggregates. Ultimately, if you wish to know the undying person in the hermitage, is it not something separate from this present skin bag?" Cleary says, it is not. I think he says the opposite. It is not this present person. How could it be apart from the skin bag? Is this the opposite? It seems like it contradicts himself there in that paragraph, you know? It's like saying, uh, I and Ann are neither identical nor different. Truly your skin, flesh, bones, and marrow are totally Ann. The lord of the house is I. It has nothing to do with the skin, flesh.

[60:47]

It separates it, it seems like. It's something apart and different from Skin, flesh, bones, four elements, five aggregates. And then it continues to separate, it seems, with, if you wish to know the undying person, the hermitage, is it not something separate from its present skin bag? It seems like... I'm clearly saying there's something off in it. He's saying it is not. In fact, it's a little confusing. It seems like they're saying the same thing, you know. I've studied Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, they say the opposite thing, but they're really saying the same thing. And it's like both are true, you know. That's right. Whichever side you say is the same thing.

[61:52]

You can say, is it not something separate? Yes, it is not something fibrous. That's right. Because it is and it isn't. That's the point, is that, is it identical or is it different? That's the question, as he states here. This being so, I and and are neither identical nor different. Is it separate? Yes. No. Yes and no. So we say not one and not two. That's the classical way of expressing it. If you say it's one, that's not right. If you say it's two, that's not right. So it's not one, not two.

[62:54]

Yeah, that's right. Who knows what? Well, in language, you have to make the split. Whenever you're speaking, you have to make this creative duality. But you have to understand that's what you're doing. Then you can speak. So sometimes you talk about the phenomenal side, sometimes you talk about the not-phenomenal side. Sometimes you talk about oneness, sometimes you talk about twoness. But it's not one or two. And yet, it includes one and it includes two.

[64:03]

But you can say it includes one and two at that time when we're talking about that particular aspect. That's right. You can say it's one because one includes two. You can say it's two because your two includes one. But not everybody's one includes two. And not everybody's two includes one. Does the dog have buddha nature? No. You can only say the dog has no buddha nature when it includes good in nature. You can only say yes when it includes no. So your yes and your no have to be bigger than just yes and no. I'm hoping that my yes and no are bigger than yes and no. It seems to me that in this paragraph though, he's saying that Our skin, flesh, bones, the phenomenal world is the and, is the whole beyond that.

[65:03]

So that's that, and the I, the lord of the house, is none of that and has nothing to do with that. I mean, given that, of course, that's how it expresses itself. But that there's this source, this I, that has nothing to do with this bag of bones. That's right. That's independent of this bag of bones. That's right. So that's an interesting kind of thing, he's saying that there's something that's independent of this bag of bones, but this bag of bones depends on it. And this is like Tozan's poem, when Tozan was, Dungshan was crossing the stream, you know, and he saw his reflection in the stream and he said, now as I go on. This is a poem, you know. Everywhere I turn I meet myself. And it is what I am, but I am not it.

[66:07]

It's what I am, but I'm not. In other words, it actually is you. And that's why in the book it was online. So, let's go on to the next paragraph. Although the seasons change and the mountains, rivers, and great earth are different over time, you should realize that because this is the old fellow Gautama's raising his eyebrows and blinking his eyes, All this is that body standing independently and openly within the myriad things. It brushes aside the myriad things and does not brush aside the myriad things. Zen Master Fa Yen said, you cannot say whether it brushes aside or does not brush aside. Zen Master Ti Tsong said, what do you mean by myriad things?

[67:17]

So everything is questioned here. Nothing is taken for granted. So it seems like you're saying there's one thing, this I, there's one thing, and all things are expressions of this one thing, which is always changing and never has any identifiable mark or anything you can grasp. But if you want to know it, it's wherever you touch, wherever you are. But there's nothing stable about it. And yet, it's completely still. So, very mysterious. So it can't be really expressed, you know, exactly. But we can express it through our activity, but we can't explain it.

[68:21]

And it's beyond our complete understanding. I'm reminded of Hegin's book, I and Thou, where there's a difference between I and It. It distinguishes I and Thou. Distinguishes? Well, it differentiates I and Thou from I and It. And so when you're talking about the last one you said, it's everywhere but nowhere. And I just was interested in the way, just like you do, that the focus in the Buddhist perspective is singular while focusing the Buddhist perspective is on the relational aspect, even though I feel like it's talking about the same perspective at the same time.

[69:24]

Well, it's neither singular nor relational. Thank you. But yet it's both. But yet we can talk about the singular aspect and the relational aspect. But if you try and separate them, then you fall into the duality. So in order to keep the understanding and the practice pure, you don't fall into the duality. So that's what makes it kind of difficult. That's why we have koans. Because the koan is kind of like, you know, you want to fall into this side, and you want to fall into this side. But if you fall into one side or the other, you lose the vitality or the tension of the koan, of your mind. which doesn't fall into oneness or twoness.

[70:29]

I just find that the difficulty happens with turning it into words. As soon as the discussion starts, the things for me start to break apart. I feel it, and I have a sense of it, and then as soon as the discrimination starts, I feel awful. Well, that's good. That's why it's a koan. Because if it does that to you, then it's good that you have that problem. Maybe if you don't understand that everything is the Buddha's island, you can pee in peace anywhere. Well, you can't hold it. But how do you... The thing is, what's your attitude? That's the important point. I think that's a great poem. The eye of a monk, the whole universe is the eye of a monk.

[71:55]

Where will you defecate? How will you eat? How will you walk? How do you treat everything? Okay, go on. Kenjo, go on. So therefore, he says, practice fully and sufficiently, develop full mastery and clarify both Gautama's enlightenment and your own as well. You should figure it out by inspecting this case in detail. I don't know if figured out is right. Yeah, you should understand your own enlightenment. I want you all to see this story closely and be able to telling the words of another. On the next day, he set aside for explanations.

[73:00]

He clearly didn't have that. I want you to present your understanding with a decisive word. And he gives his verse. This mountain monk would like to say a few humble words about this case. Would you like to listen? A splendid branch issues from the old plum tree. In time, obstructing thorns flourish everywhere." And Clary says, thorns come forth at the same time. So the word time is there, but you have to kind of decide whether it's... which time it is when you're translating. Well, it's figuring it out the same as understanding it. Well, I don't know if figuring it out is quite right. I think I understand, yeah. Also, you know, you can figure out something, but... I think it's a curiosity, because I recall the query translated apricot tree, doesn't it?

[74:06]

Yeah, apricot. Well, that's right. Well, I just thought that was curious. Well, no, I translated things with pods, and they said, oh, it's apricot. And then some other thing says, oh, that's plum. And, but this plum is, you know, Dogan has a classical Baika, plum blossoms. And this is obviously from that classical, this line, a splendid branch issues from the old plum tree. Plum tree is like enlightenment. You know, like the source of enlightenment. Apricot also, but plum is more... Would I make it clear? No, I don't know. But sometimes, I think in the characters, plum looks like apricot.

[75:10]

There's something there. Because... I remember running across this problem before. Just yellow plum? Maybe, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Branch issues from the old apricot plum tree. And in time, this time or some other time, obstructing thorns flourish everywhere. Obstructing thorns are like, what? Diversity. Challenges. Yeah, diversity, that's good. They're thorned? They're plums.

[76:16]

They're thorns on lemon trees. What do you drink from lemon trees? Thorns. You want an answer? This is not a usual country. Well, Bill, what is this? Is this a monastic, part of the monastic schedule that they set aside for explanation? Well, I don't know what that means exactly, but I would say that, you know, it's possible that He had his monks come and try to express their understanding. That's what he means by explanation. Express your understanding of what this is about.

[77:19]

Whenever the truth is expressed, there's always misunderstanding. Whenever the truth is expressed, there's always misunderstanding, yeah. That's the thought. That's a good idea. That better be. You express your misunderstanding. Yeah, that's a good idea.

[78:23]

If anybody wants to write their own gatha, their own verse, two lines. On this week's case? Yeah, on this week's case. I did this, at the end I wrote a verse, at the very end. I wrote a verse, I said, you know, I should, after giving this class, you know, I said I should write some verse, you know. So, everybody said, what is it, what did you write? Okay, so this is what I wrote at the end of the class. In the still dark night, a stone woman over and over gives birth to a mischievous wooden boy with a long nose who continuously sits with his legs in the glowing fire. Heaven only knows how long this foolish song and dance will go on. Is that two lines?

[79:26]

You have to do two lines. Read it again. It probably makes more sense after you've studied this whole thing longer. In the still dark night, a stone woman over and over gives birth to a mysterious wooden boy with a long nose who continuously sits with his legs in a glowing fire. Heaven only knows how long this foolish song and dance will go on. I'll read it again at the end. So next time we'll do Mahakasyapa, which is just the next page. And this is the transmission story from Shakyamuni to Mahakasyapa.

[80:34]

So, Shakyamuni, you know, his transmission was from I. Who? I. Capital I. Or And. It was from And. And so... But, you know, as the legend goes, there were many Buddhas before Buddha. Seven Buddhas before Buddha. Hundreds of Buddhas before Buddha. But the link had been lost. He said, oh, I just discovered this path that many Buddhas had gone down. And so he had to re-establish for himself. Whereas the others all had teachers. Shakyamuni. Shakyamuni. He had to re-establish from scratch. Of course, we all have to establish it from scratch with teachers.

[81:36]

A teacher just helps us to establish our practice from scratch, our understanding. And that's the thing about the transmission, is that even though we say transmission, there's nothing transmitted. So, there's nothing that the teacher says. So, but it's recognition. Transmission means recognition. One recognizes the other. So, and that comes out in this case of Mahakasyapa and Shakyamuni, the recognition. and Buddha holds up the flower and Mahakasyapa smiles in recognition and then Shakyamuni recognizes his understanding.

[82:45]

So that will be next time. So please read that second case. And bring your two lines. We'll do that. May the ages of time remember us.

[83:08]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ