So this is the last two lines. Particularly, I would like to chew on a little bit. A continuous weave under the loom. Naturally, there's a gold needle and a jade thread. Before the seal is wide open emptiness.

[01:07]

Originally, there's no writing. So, given the story, what's this thing about? under the look. Anybody know anything about weaving? I used to weave. So what's the warp? The warp is like wound on this beam that does go under the loom and it's wound up. And then as you need it, it just, you crank, you know, unwind it. And what's on top? What you're talking about, like, that somebody would put, like, if it's tapestry or brocade, they would be doing that above or through the opening of the warp. So the brocade's on the top, if you're doing brocade?

[02:07]

It is that style, yeah. And then underneath is the warp. Mm-hmm. So the warp's continuous, can you say? Mm-hmm. and then you're putting in new patterns into the brocade on top. So that's a, from the first case of this book, there's this idea of laying in the new thread of the ancient brocade. You have this brocade, right? The ancient brocade is creation, the latest thread in creation is coming through, right? They're emphasizing here that underneath this, laying down the new line of the brocade, the new thread of the brocade, there's also this underlying continuous warp. Okay? And that's connected to the next line, which is saying there's a seal. What's a seal? What's a seal? I mean, what do you think the seal is? Huh? Yeah, it's a stamp, but what is it a metaphor for?

[03:09]

Probably another metaphor, but Realization. It's a signature, it's an expression. It's a signature, it's an expression, but what is the sealing function? A stamp of approval? Yeah, well, it's a stamp of approval or whatever, but there's this unsigned, unstamped, unwritten on surface, right? Originally, there's not any writing on it, right? What's putting the writing on there? Naming. Naming. Naming. Huh? Huh? The mind's putting... the mind's coming up with... Conventional... Yeah. The mind's coming up with language, conventional designations, and these conventional designations are putting these... sealing or putting stamps on what is basically wide open, unwritten on surface.

[04:10]

I mean, unwritten on, we don't know what. We don't even know if it's a surface. Well, it's a reference back to the decree, right? Is it the decree written? Yeah, it's a reference back to the decree, right? So this decree comes out, this conventional verbal expression comes out into whatever, into some wide open situation and stamps it. But originally there's nothing out there. Are the stamps like a person's individual stamp? Is that like the unique ones? There are individual stamps. There's imperial stamps, there's temple stamps, there's states, there's government stamps. And there's also stamps which are sometimes broken in two and give to two different people. It's kind of like, what is it, on the nuclear submarines, right? You've got to get two people to turn the key or they have to verify orders and that kind of thing. So sometimes the stamp is broken and you give it to two people so that you can't do the stamp unless you get both people together to put it together.

[05:22]

You could even break it in three parts and have three people involved in the stamping. But anyway, some of the stamps we use are actually stamps that we all cooperate on. which are the stamps of conventional language designations. So here we are, you know, something wide open, in some wide openness, I can walk up and stamp it. And if I use conventional stamps, you guys can say, yeah, that was a good stamp, we'll go with that one. And if you don't agree, and I'm using the wrong stamp, I say, well, what stamp do you want me to use? And you say, well, use that stamp. I say, okay. Boom. But originally there's no writing or no stamping done in that. It could be my individual stamp, but also, for it to have any meaning to me, actually, at an adult age, it has to be something that makes some sense to you.

[06:24]

If I put stamps on things that you don't agree on, they aren't as real to me either. But when I do something that we've agreed on, Then when I stamp it, I think it's real, maybe. If I can remember the conventionality of the stamp, though, that perspective is liberating. Yes? It seems that the stamp, the conventional stamp, is not created at the same time the convention is created. If the convention had happened before, for us it would be just gibberish. Well, we don't, you know, we... Logically speaking, you can say that, but how would you ever have the beginning of convention? Well, is that the weaving? You said there's a through line, or just some kind of warp, or I forget the term. Right, but if you try to make the beginning of it, it would be logically difficult to come up with when it would start.

[07:29]

But anyway, we do have conventional lines, and it's available. And... So where is that being held? Where is convention being held? Well, we have conventions about where it's being held. But that's not really where it's being held. Where it's being held is actually wide open. There's conventions about conventions. So if I tell you where it is, and you agree with me, then we've gotten a convention about where a convention is held. But really, in wide openness, there isn't any convention. I mean, I shouldn't say there isn't any, but you'd have no way to identify it or to have proved that it was there, except by convention. So in the world of convention, yes, before...

[08:35]

Yes. Well, I mean, that's the convention that we're working on. We could have another convention if we want to, just a short-term convention of having no before and after. But that would just turn into a no before and after convention. We have a new one called no before and after. If you want to talk about if without convention at all, then there wouldn't be no before and after. you'd have to have a convention in order to have no before and after. Because in wide openness there isn't a no before and after there. Okay? I mean, is that making a lot of sense to you? Conventionally? Huh? Conventionally, that's all I want. In other words, we don't go around saying in wide openness there is, that there isn't any...

[09:37]

before and after. That's not wide openness. That's making a statement and using conventional language to state something about the character of wide openness, but you can't specify wide openness. But you can say that you wouldn't be able to come up with any before and after or no before and after without some conventional designations. And it doesn't mean there isn't any, though. There might be, actually, in the great wide openness of what's really happening in the universe, there might be two huge befores and afters out there. I mean, one huge before and one huge after. Like, actually, just sitting there in true reality, that might really be what's going on. Okay? Who knows? But I can say that the one we're working with is one that we dreamed up. And if I dream it up by myself, or if I dream up some alternative universe by myself, unless I'm psychotic, it won't have as much reality as if I work it out with you guys and get you to confirm my sense that what I project out there with my language is real.

[10:58]

So we make this cooperative effort so each of us get our own language kit and then we can make realities all over the place And these are realities, these are realities, but they are conventional realities because we had to arrive at them by convention. But originally there was no such mappings out there. What there is out there might be just like that, for all we know. But we don't know, because we don't know anything before we put some seals out there. But anyway, we do put seals out there, but what we know is the seals we put out there. We don't know what actually is there. We do know what the effects of our putting seals on space is. And the effects of us putting seals on space is, like last week we were talking about stars. We put stars out there, moons, planets, mountains and rivers. We do that with conventional language.

[12:01]

Before that, Well, you know, we say things like, well, the mountains are walking, and mountains are giving birth to mountain children, and there's male and female mountains, and stuff like that, before we do anything. But what does that mean, before we do something to it? This is just the talk of somebody who's liberated from believing that there's something more to conventional language than conventional language, that there's something more to conventional reality than conventional reality. But it doesn't mean that there's not some continuous warp there going on all the time, underlying it all. But what is underlying it all? Truth. Yeah, truth. And what's the truth? Dharma. And what's the dharma? Consolidation. No, it's not conventional reality. That's half of the Dharma.

[13:03]

Half of the Dharma is conventional reality. There's another half. Half we can't talk about. No, we can talk about the other half too. One half is conventional... Pardon? If we talk about it, it makes it conventional. Well, watch. One half is conventional reality and the other half is talking about conventional reality and saying that conventional reality is just that. That's the other half. That's all the Dharma you need. because Dharma, Buddha Dharma is only about letting people become free. It's not, Buddha Dharma is not about saying what actually is out there. I mean, we might wish it was. You know, like Buddha Dharma is about, you know, in Buddha Dharma they say, you know that in every atom of your body, okay, there are innumerable Buddha lands and in each Buddha land there are one Buddha and lots of bodhisattvas and arhats and stuff like that. And they're doing all kinds of stuff and all different names and stuff like that. Now, is that really what it's really like?

[14:03]

Or is that really the way the Buddhas talk in order to set us free? It's the latter. Buddha doesn't say that that is actually what's happening. They say, if you would be willing to think about things this way, that would show, you would demonstrate that you understand that conventional reality is just conventional reality, because you are now thinking in quite a different way. But not because this other way is true, but just as an exercise in taking conventional reality and putting it on a shelf for a while, because why not? It doesn't mean you kill conventional reality, you just put it on the shelf and go into an unconventional reality. Do you understand? So dharma is not really what's happening, dharma is medicine to what we think is happening, because what we think is happening is our problem. So something's happening and it's quite open and lets us put whatever we want onto it and lets us then believe in what we put onto it or not.

[15:09]

And that's conventional reality. And that's part of Dharma. Dharma says, yes, that's there, and that is conventional reality, and here's how it happens. The other part of it is, the ultimate point of view is, once you understand that and how that happens, then you say, and that's all there is to it. It's just something that dependently co-arises, and nothing more than that. That's the rest of the Dharma. And that's all you need, then, to become free. Once you're free, the Dharma's done its work, and that's all Dharma wants to do, is make people free so they can do their Buddha work, which is basically to then, if anybody else needs any more Dharma, you just give them that Dharma, those two truths. And those truths, together, set people free. You can't give the second truth to set people free by itself. You have to give them the first truth. But that won't set them free either. Got to give them the second one, too. and you have to do it in order, number one and number two. And after number two you can go back to number one, which actually number two is going back to number one and realizing that it's a non-liberating truth, but a necessary truth.

[16:20]

What's number two? Number two is basically that number one is just conventional existence. It's only a conventional truth, it's not an ultimate truth, It's a truth that we made up together. We had a convention, we decided that this was planet Earth and so on. And we've decided what everybody's name is, and they have to go through a formal process and make application to the rest of us to get their name changed. And if they follow the conventional ways, we will change the world and have the person have a different name and go from there. Right? Isn't that how we do it? And if we change it, then we have to have a convention to change that way of doing it. And the way we do it is not the only way it can be done. Convention is changing all the time. And sometimes there's an attempt to change convention, and sometimes convention resists change. But there's conventional ways to modify convention, right?

[17:22]

And actually, we are modifying convention in this class by even discussing what most people don't even know is going on. and we're modifying convention and hopefully becoming more familiar with the processes of convention. And the more familiar we are with the processes of conventional reality, the more firmly we can put our feet on that reality and dive off the end of it. Diving off the end of it doesn't mean diving into some other deeper reality. It means diving off of believing that this is ultimate reality back into thinking that it's common reality or conventional reality. So we dive out of our belief that this is more than it is. That's all. That's all we have to do. But that's hard for us for some reason. Yes, Baron, did you want to say something?

[18:31]

Yes. Please. It seems to be necessary for the matter of speaking, the fact of speaking, that we make this difference between conventional reality and ultimate reality. It's two different words. Well, of course, This metaphor of the loom, for me, points to the fact of both emerging, and there seems to be the necessity of their intricately being related. The two truths? Yeah. Yes, that's right. Just like if we write, even in our Western culture, we need this empty space of a white, usually white, sheet of paper. to have these black markings, our signatures, our seals to put up. So it depends on that wide open space, otherwise we couldn't write. Yes.

[19:32]

So the two truths are two different truths, but they also are the same, because the second truth is really, in some very important way, about the first truth. And over the week I tried to relate that to the story itself because there of course in a conventional reading, in my conventional reading, there's a before and after, there's the master and the monk and there's let's say, wisdom and not knowing. And last week I felt strong solidarity with this, he pointed that out, this nameless monk. And I felt kind of pity, why doesn't he have a name? But over the week this changed, and I thought, that's quite a good name for him to have no name. to have no name at all. And suddenly I could relate this to this space which is unmarked.

[20:37]

So in a way he's also unmarked space. And the master cannot be wisdom. The master, because of his presence, turned around. This before and after of wisdom and not knowing was not so clear anymore, but kind of intricately interwoven, like a room. That's it? Okay, now, this reminds me of something. Two things. One is that These stories are an opportunity, if you want to, you can.

[21:40]

Of course, we're discussing these stories in this group here, right? And we're presenting certain things of our understanding of these stories. there is a possibility of each one of you presenting your unique... presenting your unique expression, or expressing yourself in relationship to this story, or one aspect of this story. There is an opportunity for you to do that, to present, to express. This story is about when meeting face to face, then what? How is it? Right? But this story, plus all the other stories, are opportunities to present your face, to express your face around any one of these stories.

[22:42]

So, Bernd just did a little, you know, he worked on this, he thought about this this week, and then he turned the story in a certain way and came up with some different aspects on this. So part of what's turning in this story is, for example, is the monk's name not mentioned because the monk doesn't deserve to be mentioned because he never really came out and put himself out there. He came forward and said, hey, I want to express myself. How would that be? But he did it too theoretically or something like that someone could say. So one idea is that this monk did not really express himself so well. That's why his name's not there, because he's not a Zen master. Because he didn't express himself. And you've got to express yourself to be a Zen master. And he didn't. He's too theoretical. Or he expressed himself, but he overshot the mark, or undershot the mark.

[23:50]

He didn't really, like, come right up to his own face and put it out there, and keep putting it out there until he got confirmation. in that story. That's one understanding of the story. It seems to be the understanding of the commentator. And it seems to be the understanding of history by not having the person's name. Usually people who get their face out there and keep putting it out there and putting it out there until they get some confirmation, usually they get their names in there. But Barron's turning it again and saying, well maybe in this particular story this monk is not that way. because maybe he's in some sense maybe like wide open space or something himself. But I'm just saying, that's Barron's particular like turning the story in a certain way for himself, and that's what he's presenting. But each of you can turn the story in some way that hasn't come up yet, that nobody else has done. Which may or may not be You're a real face.

[24:51]

You're a real expression. And then you have to sort of feel like whether that was really you or kind of like a little bit too much or a little bit too little. And it's not so much that you state your face as reality, but you state your face as, this is where I'm at on this story. So you can use these stories if you want to as an opportunity to put your face out there, to put yourself out there. and see if the dragon will come and meet you. This story, as we've been talking about it, presents a kind of paradigm for meeting, or describes the process of actual meeting. But all these stories are opportunities for you to present yourself and see if you can really say what you want to say, and then how are you met in that. So I felt like Bernd was sort of moving into trying to find his own expression there a minute ago.

[25:59]

So that reminded me to tell you about this. Do you have any questions about that? What I just said? Was that real clear? To me it was. So I invite you to use these stories in that way. And, like I said, it all can be used that way. And if you want to, you can spend, you know, we're spending, like, what, some years to go through this book. You can also just, like, you can go through this book yourself and come and present your understanding of each story right through, your own individual understanding. You have some background on the first 44 now, so that might be enough to help you, like, Find out what you feel, what you want to say about the story, and come and say it. And then again, when you say it, see if that really was, if you use the expression, your best effort, like the most authentic expression of your understanding and your being through this medium of this story at that time.

[27:09]

And if it's not, then you won't be surprised if... you might not be surprised if someone else didn't think it was. And if they think it is, you can tell them, well, you're wrong. That wasn't really what I had to say. I didn't make it, so don't give me confirmation too easily. And then sometime you might feel like it was and not get confirmation, and then there's a struggle. Or there might be meeting. And today we're studying another book of koans called The Transmission of the Light. And we were studying the story of the eighth and ninth of the ancestors in our lineage, Buddha Nandi and Buddha Mitra, their relationship, their meeting. And one of the main concerns in their meeting on the part of the student was, the student was very conscious and very aware, even before... He was 50 years old when he met his teacher, and he had never walked

[28:17]

before that time. He didn't walk as a kind of meditation reminder. He didn't walk because he was so aware of the defilement of contact, which we understood today to mean the defilement that can arise when you have contact with another person, or the defilement that arises when your mind has contact with objects. There's always a possibility of defilement whenever your mind grasps an object, whenever your mind thinks of something. There's a danger of defilement in that contact. So he was so worried about that, he didn't walk until he met his teacher. He didn't speak either before that. But when he met his teacher, he expressed basically his, he tried to speak to this person in such a way as to not in that contact as to not be defiled by that contact.

[29:23]

And the teacher confirmed it, so then he walked. So how can you... So part of the question is, how can you read these stories, these traditional stories, or read Buddhist material, or meet Buddhist teachers, hear Buddhadharma, and when you hear it, when your sense consciousness touches that information, how can you hear it in such a way that there's no defilement, that there's no, you know, no defilement, no grasping or turning away, or shrinking back or leaning forward into the experience. You stay upright in the interface between mind and object, between self and other. So this is an encouragement to you to use these koans now for maybe the next few decades, go through this book, story by story, and find your own expression and bring that to somebody.

[30:28]

Offer it and interact around your personal expression of the story. Yes? What you were just talking about, isn't that assuming that your mind is purified? Isn't what assuming that your mind is purified? Talking about defilement from coming in contact with an object or... With contact, which you were just speaking of? Yes. Isn't that assuming that your mind is purified? Isn't what assuming that your mind is purified? Defilement. I mean, can there be one without the other? Can there be defilement without purity? Well, I don't think so. But that doesn't necessarily make me understand what you're asking. Is that all you're asking? I forgot. I mean, I guess I just wanted to ask about that. See, this guy, this Buddha, what is his name, Buddha Mitra, when he, he was aware of the potential of defilement in contacts when you meet people.

[31:34]

He was aware of that. Being aware of that, that's not defile. That's just actually an awareness of a danger in mind-object relationships, self-other relationships. But of course, All dharmas depend on other dharmas, and the dharma of purity depends on the dharma of impurity, so they dependently co-arise. But still there is such a thing as a dependently co-arising thing, a dependently co-arising thing, which has no inherent existence, called being upright, called meeting situations without leaning into them or leaning back from them. There is such a phenomenon. Is there a hand over there? Is it helpful to think of what you said in the question in terms of concept white bird and snout? Is that concept helpful in this context? Do you find it helpful?

[32:35]

I feel as though it's nearby, and I would like a little bit of finer light shown on it. That's what I asked. That is someone speaking of purity or defilement. When speaking of coming right up to something but not overstepping. And we think in terms of Buddha nature at all times. then that manifests, in some sense, with the mind permeating the physical, which seems to me something like that bird in the snow, or perhaps you could say. Did you understand what she said? Would you tell me more, a bit more?

[33:38]

I don't think I can say much more than that, you see. Well. Is it warm enough in here? It's hot. Thank you. So this story sits there, and the way we're talking about it, it's a story about, it's kind of a story about how to work with stories, and how to relate to others, and how mind and object relate, and how we create the world.

[34:49]

It's about all those things, but still, not still, but And at some point, if you feel that you've ever met this koan, if you feel like you've met the story, like you met the story, and you have some experience, or you're aware of the possibility of having to file contact with this story, and you feel like somehow you met this story, not even that you met this story, but anyway, you met this story, and from that meeting, something comes up, you know, in this kind of meeting where you're free of the defilement of the contact. At that time, this is kind of like what we call unconstructedness and stillness.

[35:50]

You just meet it in stillness and silence. There's a silence and stillness in the meeting. And this unconstructedness can talk. It doesn't necessarily talk, but eventually it can talk, or it can make a gesture. It can animate the body, or the body can be animated out of this place. This is your expression at that time. And this is important, to bring this unconstructedness and stillness into the world. It's part of the overall course

[36:55]

of the practice, is to bring it into the world. In other words, make up Buddha land with it. Now, there's no rush to do this because we're actually suggesting, first of all, you reach this place. reach this place where you're in the place where mind and object meet, and you're not tampering or messing with the meeting at all. You feel, not you feel even, but there is this perfect balanced meeting, and that place can express itself. So, again, there's no rush to get there.

[37:57]

It's urgent, but don't rush to get there, because if you rush to get there, you'll be sure to defile the meeting or defile the contact. Carefully, quietly, explore your way to this balanced meeting. Okay? Now, we've been studying these stories for a long time, so I'm sort of now saying, maybe it's about time for some people, when they feel like they've arrived at the, you could say, the quiet place in the story, when you feel like you've arrived there, and you're balanced there, maybe it's time for some people to start, to get there, to see if there's something talking coming, if there's some words coming out of that place. Somebody told me about arriving at that place and I said, he was talking about it. And I said, have you arrived there?

[39:00]

And he said, yes, but as soon as I talked, I left there. I said, well, I can understand that. But can you arrive there and not you talk? maybe take you away from there but you arrive there or you forget yourself into that place and then you sit there and then not you talk from that place but talk comes up and you watch it it's like that story which a lot many of us read years ago of the archery teacher who taught this guy to hold the string until the fingers, the hand just let go, the fingers let go by themselves. That kind of thing. So you get to this place until the words just come out by themselves, so to speak. You're not separate from that, but they're not, it isn't an action. It's not you talking.

[40:06]

There's unconstructedness there, but words can come up in that place. So, I definitely encourage you to go to that place. to clearly observe this place where the world is created around this contact between self and other, between mind and objects. I definitely encourage you to watch that process, but I don't encourage you to speak, because at that place you will be dropped off. But I do encourage you to go to that place and then just sit there and wait there and see if there's some words come. And if the words come, Good. Then they're really, somehow, even though you didn't do them, those are really your words. And then if you want to, then see if you can go sit in the presence of somebody else and go to that place. And if you can go to that place and see if the words come then. And maybe they won't. That's fine. Come back some other time.

[41:08]

Keep trying again and again. And sometime the words will come. Or the hand gesture. Or the eyebrows. Or something will come. Okay, so that's my... Maybe now is the time to start working on that for a few decades. It only takes about a hundred meetings for some people to go through the book. But there are a hundred good meetings. A hundred meetings where you are there. and where you're so there that you drop off, and yet somebody can talk. All right? So, shall we go under case 45? So this case is called Four Sections of the Enlightenment Sutra.

[42:24]

Do you know these four sections? Some people think these four sections are interesting sections. Do you know these four sections? Have you learned about them? Well, I think they're quite short. They'll phrase each. So you might learn these four sections. Maybe something that you might want to like. What is it called? They had that comedian a few years ago. His name was Guido Sarducci, Father Guido Sarducci. And he had this college. He had this college where It was a really fast college because what they taught you was just the things which you would remember from college courses ten years later. So like they had Spanish, you know, and then you just, what is it? No, it was like, hola, and it was like, como se sientes, and hasta la vista.

[43:44]

That was the course, and that's the first course. So you could do this, just memorize these four things, and that would be, you know, Zen, not 101, this would be Zen, but 305, I'd say. This would be kind of an advanced end course if you knew these four. Like a lot of people know what's the sound of one hand clapping, right? And does a dog have Buddha nature? That's the thing you remember from the first course. This is the third course, these four things. So memorize them and you will be, well... who will be one of the more educated Zen people. So, do you know what they are? What are they? What's the first one? At all times do not produce delusive thoughts. Not producing delusive thoughts. That's the first section.

[44:46]

The second section is don't try to stop and annihilate delusive thoughts. The third section is in realms of false conception, don't add knowledge. And the last one is don't find reality in no knowledge. And the short form is not producing delusive thoughts, not annihilating deluded states of mind, not applying knowledge, and not finding reality. No knowledge. Those are the four sections. All right? And just parenthetically, I've mentioned to you a number of times, and I played a tape the other day of Suzuki Roshi saying, you know, sometimes people say, you have to get rid of, he said, elusive thoughts, but I think he meant, you know, delusive thoughts.

[45:50]

We have to get rid of deluded thoughts, he said. But you shouldn't get rid of deluded thoughts, rather you should... Because deluded thoughts are the basis of freedom from deluded thoughts. You have no freedom from delusion without using delusion. So again, they're inseparable. Non-discriminating awareness, non-delusive thought, has delusive thought as its content. It is inseparable. Non-deluded thought has no meaning or purpose or use or point other than deluded thought. But this doesn't say exactly annihilating deluded thought, it says don't produce deluded thoughts. Okay, and then in the commentary it says these four things are called, all these four clauses, these four phrases are called four illnesses also. Usually they're called four illnesses. But here they become medicine.

[47:00]

So I feel that these things are very much like, you know, another elaboration of, or it's an elaboration of being aware of the defilement of contact. And these are ways to help you somehow be balanced in the middle of the constant opportunity of being defiled. Every situation where there's consciousness, whenever there's consciousness, there's contact between the conscious surface and what it's sensitive to. So there's always this opportunity of defilement or an imbalanced presence in that meeting. So these four could in one sense be considered as sicknesses or as medicines, depending on how you take a hold of them.

[48:17]

Dangerous things are the way to develop skill, but they're also ways of getting hurt. These are four dangerous areas here. Four different dangerous ways of working with our potential to create illusion. Any questions about that? Yes. I feel that case 45 fits very tightly with case 44. And the reason I think that is to take a slightly different twist on case 44 from what I've heard discussed. I think that I was near last week, but the phrase it's like a falcon catching a pigeon. Yes, it's pretty central to what the Master's expressing. I don't think that

[49:21]

When you refer to the deluded thought, or a falling case, don't produce delusive thoughts, don't annihilate them. You don't budge, you don't move, and you don't give rise to them, and you don't annihilate them. Yes. So why did the Master say, just like a falcon, Grab a pigeon. There's no movement. I think it's because before you can make a movement, the kill has already happened. Before... So I don't agree with the interpretation of case 44 that says that a dragon... I think the monk is saying... This is me. I'm coming forth to express myself to you.

[50:23]

What do you have to say about that?" And I think the Master says, that's fine, but it's like a fobbing, grabbing a pigeon. And even before you come forth and express yourself, has that action been carried out? And the Chinese word here is for a falcon grabbing a pigeon I think is T, which means if you've ever imagined seeing pigeons flying through the air, the falcon comes down, strikes the pigeon and lifts it up. Which is what the Chinese word implies, I think. So to me it's indicative that The kind of action that the masters point to is really a very strong thing that happens, a very powerful thing that happens.

[51:27]

Essentially, to me, it annihilates the sense itself, and it happens before it's expressed. So I think that case 45, the way that relates to case 45 is that it simply Case 45 really emphasizes the not. Now, do I hear you proposing something, some powerful thing that annihilates the sense of self? Do I hear you say something like that? No. But what did I hear you say? You heard me express a metaphor for something that annihilates the sense of self. What is it that annihilates the sense of self? I don't think that the sense of self needs to be annihilated. What did you bring it up for?

[52:30]

The annihilation of the self. I think it's simply a metaphor for the emptiness, the sense of the emptiness that's expressed in Case 45. You think, what is a metaphor for the emptiness of the self? The pigeon. The falcon's darting the pigeon. So you don't think that the self gets annihilated? No. What happens to it? I think it isn't there to begin with. Isn't there to begin with? Do you have anything more to say about it? Yeah, I think that the expression that's put forth in case 45 is

[53:33]

That no movement is the way to express that the self is not there to begin with. Now, are you really saying that you don't think the self is there to begin with? Yeah, I'm really saying it's not there. That's right. So the situation is that we've had the situation of actually there is not a self. That's what's there to begin with. Right. That the beginning is not a self. Yes. And then you think that not moving expresses that it's not a self in the beginning. Is that what you're saying? Yes. I think that... But it seems to me that moving is that saying that there's not a self there in the first place is movement.

[54:46]

And that not moving would not be to propose that there's not a self there in the first place. It's not a question of there being a self or not being a self. But you said there was not a self there in the beginning. And I asked you if you really meant that and you said yes. And then you went on to say that Moving was the expression of that not being a self in the first place. I said moving is the expression. You said not moving was. So, the emptiness of self, the fact that self lacks inherent existence, is not that there isn't a self. Well, I think it's like a falcon striking a pigeon. Yeah, well, who's the pigeon? I don't know who the pigeon is.

[56:00]

Do we have a pigeon or do we not have a pigeon in this situation? We definitely have a pigeon. Henry? Well, actually, as long as Andy brought it up, I think... Like, 45 actually sort of comes before 44. It says that a monk was studying the perfect enlightenment scriptures for years, and his first sentence is the encapsulation of the four principles, and then he says, okay, now what? Now this is what I'm going to do with them. So, in a sense, I see that they're linked, but I see that the way I see it is that... Yeah, I think we all agree that they're closely related, right?

[57:02]

Mm-hmm. Either they're closely related. The question is, which one comes first in the cycle of the universe? Does the metaphor come first and the philosophical rendition come second, or does the philosophy come first? And Henry is more of the school of study philosophy first and then go into action, right? Well, I just think... Which is fine. I think the monk was coming from the scripture. Well, I think you might very well be right, because I think that one could have studied that scripture and then tried to demonstrate it by what he said. And the question is, I guess, whether he was a pigeon. Or whether he was, you know, an upright dragon.

[58:04]

And that's part of his question, but, you know, the real question, of course, is what do you have to say and how would you present case 45 yourself? Would you do it like this monk or how would you do it if you were going to present it? That's how this monk did it. I think Henry's right that this monk could have studied these four things and been trying to express it in this way. This could have been his attempt. The teacher, however, then responded in that way. And then we see the rest of the story, which we can debate about somewhat. What's the matter, Jonathan? Are you relaxed? Were you relaxed before I asked you? No. Last week you asked about, we thought about, we could write a story about the case.

[59:17]

How about case 44? Yeah. 45. Yes, uh-huh. I wrote a story. Thank you. Please read it. Okay. This is, now he's like the monk, so he read case 45, and now he's coming forth with his expression. Okay, everybody watch carefully now. Watch or listen? When you listen and then, you know, by radar you can tell where he is. One of the ways I try to gather information about a problem is by thinking or writing about it right before I go to bed. I did that with Case 45 in the Book of Serenity. The next morning I was doing my morning stretches. When I was doing my morning stretches, the words, evenly suspended, came to mind. The words were followed by an image of a rope and a plank bridge over a deep canyon. It reminded me of a scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

[60:18]

I imagined myself at the center of the bridge, not going forward, not going backward, not falling off into the chasm, not catapulting up into the sky. I imagined myself evenly suspended and peaceful. On reflection, I thought about the fear that actually being in this position might bring up. And I correlated that fear with the threat represented by the dragon in the previous case. So I saw a connection to it. Thank you. Any other stories? I want to first thank you for bringing it up. I thought I was encouraged to do it. And I wrote something also from... I wrote, a monk encountered the streetlight below which read a sign, the open avenue is closed.

[61:21]

And how will I get there, she asked. Do not try to go, and above all, do not try to avoid going. A warm breeze blew from the alley. The monk sat down. avoid the extremes of what is and what isn't. Thank you. So, again, what I'm asking you to try to do then, like these two people presenting something, so now what would be good to see is if you can Maybe now you already wrote that. You wrote that from someplace. And that's over. Now, can you go back to that place?

[62:27]

And then, next time it comes, check and see. if there's any kind of like defilement of contact there, or see if you feel like that can emerge, those words can emerge without you getting involved, and without you looking away. And again I say that if that can happen, if a story like that can come, and you don't mess with it, it has its own kind of like life, you know, You can leave it alone. That shows that it's yours. But not yours, the person who does things. Because the person who does things is a person who suffers from other things. But there's an autonomous person who's autonomous. But that doesn't mean you're independent.

[63:28]

And that person can sing and dance. Is it that person? You check it out. And then, again, see if that person can talk. And if when you talk, again, you slip out of that and back into the person who's doing the talking. And again, I propose to you that this place is this place where you're not producing a deluded thought. Because deluded thoughts are, you know, not just images, but images which we attribute reality to. That's what makes them deluded. It doesn't mean nothing's happening.

[64:33]

It means that there's not this defilement in the attribution of reality to what's coming up. And also there's not some kind of like trying to annihilate. If you notice deluded thoughts or any kind of thoughts, there's not some kind of way to push them away. And also you're not applying knowledge to... It's a situation... I don't know if the situation is complex or confused. There's not... attributing reality to it. And also there's not like, hey, there's no knowledge here. I guess I'm safe. This must be reality. It's not that either. So, I mean, I can't really tell how this is coming across, whether you can even ask questions about this.

[65:43]

I have a question. Yes. Is it possible from this place for fragments to come up? In other words, not whole sentences but pieces of things that then you know, like I feel I have to add to, but that there's a coming up of a part of something, or does it only come up in complete and complete way? Did you hear a question? Way in the back, you heard it? You have good ears, Jerry. Soren, could you hear it too? Wow, that's great. Dave, could you hear it? No. She said something like, at this place, at this balanced place, is it possible that part of something could come up, or does it come up all at once? You know, it doesn't have to be whole sentences.

[66:45]

It certainly doesn't have to be whole sentences. Now, could it come up, could part of something come up? Answer is, no. No partial things have ever happened. Except there has been the happening of a partial thing, but that's a full happening. You know, it's a fully fledged half a word. It's not what I meant. I was asking about the word that comes out, or maybe the two words that come out, that are part of something and that feel authentic. But they're not really part of something. You say they're part of something. Afterwards I say they're part of something and then they feel incomplete, but when they come up, if I were to just offer those, it doesn't feel like it's an entire piece. Where did the, it doesn't feel like it's an entire piece come from? From looking at it after it came up. What?

[67:46]

From looking at it after it came up. Yeah, but where, from where can, where would you be when you looked at it? That's where I was. You'd be at the same place? No. No. You'd be outside that process. Yeah, well, that's... Then, like that guy said, I said, I asked him, he said he was talking about reaching this place, you know, and I said, well, can you reach it again? He said, yes. And I said, well, how is it? He said, when I tell you how it is, I leave the place. It's not necessary to talk to me and leave the place. But most people will, as soon as they start talking about the place, you leave the place. If I ask you how it is there, and you look at it, you've left it. But if you just stay at that place, and I ask you how is it, and you just wait until the word comes, there's the word. It's not yours. It's that place's word.

[68:47]

And that place answered my question. That place doesn't always answer my question, like verbally, but actually that place answers my question as soon as I say it, there's an answer. Always. But not necessarily a verbal answer. As soon as I ask, how is it there? There is an answer. But I can't hear it until sometime later, there is an answer. And there's not an answer, there's a word, okay? This is what I propose to you. If you're at that place, and I ask, how is it there? You don't answer me. But as soon as I ask it, at that same moment there is an answer. And the answer is not like I say, how is it? And then somebody says, fine. That fine is not the answer to my question.

[69:48]

The answer to my question is exactly at the same moment as my question. When my question comes, it deeply penetrates that place. And that place totally resonates with my question. And my question is, life is that response at that moment. Then sometime later, one second later, one minute later, ten years later, there's this so-called answer. But the answer is already over. Now there's this whole new creation, which may have something to do with my question. But it's a new creation coming from that place. And that tells me, That can tell me, that answer can tell me that when I ask the question, the person who was there listened and felt the answer and didn't do anything and didn't leave the place to give me an answer.

[70:53]

Then sometime later, it could be quite soon later, This answer comes, and this answer is complete. Now, if you look at that, you can say it's complete or incomplete or whatever. But then you've moved out of the place again. You're judging. This thing comes. But the answer is right away. And unfailing. It will come. And the person there will be will be will witness that answer at that moment. But there's no time to talk because I'm doing the talking when you hear... If I ask the question or someone asks you the question, that's the talking that's going on. You have nothing to say at that time. You are just listening. Your listening is the response. But then quite soon after there can be another answer And that answer can be this authentic answer if you don't then move away to talk about the place.

[71:57]

You don't move, which means you don't produce diluted thoughts. You don't try to iron anything to get rid of them. You don't attribute reality to this, whatever's going on. And if there's an open space or some kind of lack of knowledge, you don't make that into reality either. So, I would say that this judgment that it was a partial thought is just taking yourself away from the place. Judging that it was a complete thought is taking you away from your place. From this place, anything that comes up is a complete thing. And that thing, dependently co-arises, just like all other things, has conventional reality. It has a conventional reality. It is conventional reality that half a word is half a word.

[73:02]

That's conventional reality. Or a word and a half is a word and a half. And if it's not a word and a half, then it's not that thing. So then it's not that. It isn't that what comes out of this place is like ultimate reality all of a sudden. It's just that you're at the place to witness the creation of conventional reality. That's all I'm talking about. And you're not like... you're not like something in addition to... you're not something in addition to conventional reality. You also are conventionally existing. But the realization of your autonomy occurs in this context. These words are the words of your autonomous self, and your autonomous self is an interdependent self, and the interdependent self, it doesn't do karma.

[74:05]

Well, I have an inability to really follow your instructions, but I have a deluded thought that's been dying to come out. And that is... it just strikes me what you're saying is to come from a place and instead of being able to do it I'm only willing I guess right now to talk about it is to act in a place where there's no personal history where I don't really exist or if I could just act without even without all my associations of who I am in other words if I could talk without remembering who I am or what I've been or what I ate yesterday for lunch yeah that's That's close to what I'm talking about. Except it's not like there's no personal history there. It's not like there's not everything around you. Personal history is hanging on the trees. It's coming down in all the raindrops.

[75:36]

So what is it like? Don't hurry. You're getting warm. What's it like, Carol? I wonder if you asked us a question. My heart has been pounding as though I weren't, the way it does when I put in one step. And that's all. Mm-hmm. That's pretty good. Pretty clean. My heart's been pounding, too.

[76:45]

A true story. Last week, it was a couple of days after Monday night class, I got onto an elevator at work with a woman, a character baby. No, not a baby, a child, about two and a half years old. It's hard for me to engage with her, too. And I looked at her, and she had over her shoulder a bag probably for the child's things, and it was unwashed. And my mind began to go through all kinds of trips about this woman with her baby in this bag with all these things in it. What's she doing in this office building? You know, all these, I think, negative thoughts. And we get off the elevator at the same floor. And her little child just looks at me and smiles and goes, hello. And I wasn't in my body when I got on the elevator.

[77:46]

And then when she did that, I just, I got right back into my stuff. And I think that's a little bit about what we're talking about tonight. For me, it's coming back It's about returning home and it's about sitting there and trusting that and watching to see what happens in that place and see if you can when it arises whether you can not get thrown off by it And I'll see if you can wait for it, even if someone's asking you, what's it like there? You get to say, somehow, you get to say, it's easy maybe to say, answer the question, did you arrive home?

[78:47]

You say yes. Now what's it like? What's it like doesn't mean tell me about it. How is it doesn't mean tell me about it. It's more like, OK, I'm waiting now. Let it talk. Because I want to hear it or see it, because I'm not reading that place. So this case and the previous case, this case, I think, in some sense, I agree with Henry, that this case is kind of guiding you to the serene waters of the dragon waves. This case, case 45, is giving you four kind of like parameters to guide yourself back home

[79:56]

And when you're there, heaven and earth are calm. The dragon's waters are calm. And you just sit there. And then see, watch the dragon come up. And then can you face that dragon without, you know, grabbing it and getting thrown off or shrinking back from it? What does it say? Watch what it says. It will talk. It can talk. This home place is not a created place. But it can... Dragons can come out of there. All right? So, please, guide yourself home. Use these stories to guide yourself home. I actually wish we had Case 46 for you to... You start studying, and so I would ask you to start studying case 46. But use these two stories.

[81:10]

Use these two cases, 44 and 45. Use these as guidance, as meditation instruction about getting home, and then see if you can study case 46 from the instructions that we've been discussing in these two cases. Use case 45 to go home. Use case 46... as a model of expression. And don't be in a hurry to let the expression come. That's not a voluntary thing. The dragon comes out in its own time. It waits for the insects of the second month to start making sounds. This is the third month insects. You just go home to where the dragon lives and then you wait there You keep coming home again and again and see when it's time for the dragon to talk. And then see when the dragon talks, can you stay there with it?

[82:11]

Or do you become a person who's looking at the dragon? Can you arise with the dragon? Okay? Maybe that, I don't know, that might be clear. And if it's not, Please ask questions. If you arise with a dragon, is that co-dependent? Co-dependent co-arising? Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Just curious. You're just curious? Yeah. Maybe. They arise to share

[83:00]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_84.56