I'll start to talk on section 9, page 86. Before I start to talk, I'd like to ask you one thing. I'm sure my English is sometimes not clear. So if you have a question about my English expression or If you cannot hear my pronunciation, or if you need more clear explanation, please give me questions. But the questions from somewhere else, please wait until I finish talking. We have question and answer time for 30 minutes. Otherwise, we cannot finish. And in the case of study group, we have every week on Mondays.

[01:13]

It's an ongoing thing, so I don't care about it. We don't need to finish it within certain period. But in the case of Genzo-e, I'd like to finish my desire. Finish this within 5 days. So please be patient. Section 8 was about the sayings of Enkan Sai Am. His saying was, all living beings have buddha nature, or are in buddha nature. And in section 9, Rogen comments on Isan. In some sense, all sentient beings or living beings have no Buddha nature.

[02:22]

First, let me read that section. Shakyamuni Buddha once said, to the assembly of monks, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature. Among those who have him in the human world and in the deva realms were some beings of outstanding capacity who rejoiced in him. thrown into wandering doubt by it were not unknown either. Shakyamuni expounded, all sentient beings, without exception, have the Buddha nature. Thagpe expanded, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature.

[03:33]

The word have and not have are totally different in principle. It is understandable that doubts should arise as to which utterance is correct. But in the Buddha way, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature, is alone preeminent. If his words have the Buddha nature, Ien Kwan seems to be putting out a hand in concert with the old Buddha Shakyamuni. Nonetheless, it cannot help being a case of two men holding up one staff. Now Takei is different. In his case, one staff swallows up both men. Of course, National Teacher Ien Kwan was a child of Matsu and Takei was Matsu's grandchild.

[04:38]

Yet, in the way of his Dharma grandfather, Dharma grandson Takei proves to be an old grey beard. And in the way of his Dharma father, the Dharma son Yen Kan is still a carol youth. The principle at work in Thakhe's words is the principle of all sentient beings have no buddha nature. That does not mean that Thakhe's no buddha nature is boundless and lacks definition, for it is present right there, received and maintained in the scriptures he embodies within his own house. It should be probed further. How could all sentient beings be buddha-nature?

[05:41]

How could they have a buddha-nature? If a sentient being had a buddha-nature, he would belong with the devil ethics. It would be assuring in a devil I am trying to set him on top of a sentient being. Since buddha nature is just buddha nature, sentient beings are just sentient beings. It is not that sentient beings are from the first endowed with the buddha nature. Here the essential point is even though you seek the buddha nature, hoping to endow yourself with it, Buddha nature is not something to appear now for the first time. Do not imagine it is a matter of churn, drink and re-getting drunk.

[06:45]

If sentient beings originally possessed the Buddha nature, they would not be sentient beings. They are sentient beings. They are not the Buddha-nature at all. This is one Po Chan said. To preach that sentient beings have the Buddha-nature is to disparage Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. To preach that sentient beings have no Buddha-nature is also to disparage Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Therefore, whether it is hard Buddha nature or have no Buddha nature, both end up by disparaging the three treasures. But, regardless of the disparagement, you cannot get by without making an atlas.

[07:48]

Now, let me ask Také and Po-chan It may well be disparagement, but has the Buddha-nature been really preached or not? Even granting it has been preached, wouldn't the Buddha-nature be totally implicated in the preaching? Any preaching of it would have to occur together with the hearing of it. Moreover, I must ask Takei, even though you articulated that all sentient beings have no buddha nature, you did not say all buddha natures have no sentient beings, or that all buddha natures have no buddha nature. Still less could you have seen even in your dreams that

[08:51]

All buddhas have no buddha nature. Now let's see if you can come up with a response. So Shogun is asking to those two Zen masters. So, you know, all Buddha, all sentient beings, or all living beings, in this case, the original word is shu-jo. So I think living beings is better than sentient beings. Because sentient beings is a translation of u-jo. The word used here is shu-jo. It means all living beings. All living beings have Buddha nature.

[09:52]

This is a traditional Mahayana Buddhist teaching from the Parinibbana Sutra. And until 19th century, many Buddhists believed that all those sutras, even including Mahayana sutras, were the actual record of Shakyamuni Buddha's saying. So it's very kind of difficult to doubt what is written in the sutra. So until then, sutra has pretty much authority. But somehow, this Zen master, Hisan Renyu, said the opposite thing. from the Parinibbana Sutra or even for the Buddha said within the Parinibbana Sutra that these sentient beings have, all sentient beings without exception, have Buddha nature.

[11:03]

But here, Dalai Lama said, all living beings have no Buddha nature, or 無仏性. So among those who have him in the human world and in the deva realms were some beings of outstanding capacity who rejoiced in it. There might be some people who are glad to hear this teaching of no buddhanature. But those thrown into wandering doubt by it were not among the rather more natural to question five all living beings have buddha nature. Shakyamuni expanded, all sentient beings without exception have the buddha nature.

[12:05]

Takei, Takei's Issam expanded, all sentient beings have no buddha nature. So again, wu buddha nature and wu buddha nature. Wu and wu. Wushu. So somehow there are two heads, two sides, two pieces. in Buddha-nature, who and who. This is a point of this time Dogen's discussion about Buddha-nature. And the words have, have and do not have are totally different in principle.

[13:07]

I think it's very clear. If we say both at the same time, we are confused. because our way of thinking doesn't like contradiction. It is understandable that doubts should arise as to which atom is correct, which one is... So, when we hear two contradicted things, we have to, or we want to, figure out which is right, which is correct, which is not correct. Then Dogen said, but in the Buddha way, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature. It's alone preeminent. That means, Isambel's saying or expounding, Dharma, no Buddha nature is superior to all Buddha nature.

[14:08]

Shakyamuni is saying, all sentient beings have buddha nature. And with his words, have the buddha nature or lose buddha nature. Iyengar was a person who said, all living beings Wu buddha nature in the section 8 seems to be putting out a hand in concert with the old buddha Shakyamuni. So, Enkan said Wu bushwa. So, Enkan is saying the same thing with the Shakyamuni, the Buddha. Nonetheless, it cannot help being a case of two men holding up one staff.

[15:14]

Two men holding up one staff means Enkan, Shakyamuni, and Enkan holding this one Buddha nature. This expression, two men holding up one staff, came from, I think, from a record of Rinzai. Somewhere, I don't remember, but there's some story. Rinzai and another Zen master hold one staff and disappear. Something like that. But here, Dogen said about Isan's no-buddha nature. Now, Takei is different. In his case, one staff swirls up both men. So, in this case, In the case of Mu Bussho, both men, Shakyamuni and Enkan, were swallowed within this stuff that is buddha nature. So these two men disappeared.

[16:17]

Only the stuff stayed. That means only buddha nature stayed. So he doesn't praise Také or Isang stayed. No buddha nature. And this expression, one start swallowed up, came from one koan story. Not a story. One koan. That is a saying of a woman, or a woman in Japanese. So I'd like to introduce that poem. It is a case 60 of Burunkul's record. The title of this poem in this translation is, Young Men's Stuff Changes into a Dragon.

[17:29]

So, when the women gave former Dharma discourse at the Dharma hall since he had a staff. And this staff changed, transformed into a dragon. The main case is as follows. This is a very short one. It said, young man, or unmon, showed his staff to the assembly. So he hold his staff and showed it to his disciples and said, the staff has changed into a dragon. So this staff became a dragon and swallowed the universe. So this staff became a dragon and that dragon swallowed the universe. Mountains, rivers, the great earth.

[18:33]

Where are they to be found? So... One star becomes a dragon and that dragon swallows the entire universe. It means the entire universe becomes the star and the dragon. That means In this case, unmo. Unmo swallows the entire universe, so this entire universe becomes unmo. This is the expression of unyo, jinsai jiko, or all-pervading self. So we are all living beings within the entire universe. Then, if so, how fair a woman's self?

[19:43]

Mountain, river, the great earth. Fair are they to be found. This can be interpreted in two ways. Therefore, there is no such thing called mountain, river, the great earth as object of this person. Those have become part of me, part of my life. But another possible interpretation is, umon is kind of questioning if this entire universe is one with that person. Why there are mountains and rivers and great oceans and all the other things with which we have to work together. What are they? So here the point is the oneness and two or moreness duality or manyness.

[20:55]

You know, there are many things within this world and I am only one of them. But if, you know, this The entire universe is one entity, like one body. One body has billions of cells and different parts like hands and eyes and head or feet. If this is one thing, each part disappears. This is just one thing. And yet, hands cannot be head and foot cannot be stomach. Each are different. So, the point is, in the introduction of this case it said, Buddhas and sentient beings, fundamentally there is no difference between them.

[21:59]

So Buddhas and sentient beings, enlightened Buddha and deluded sentient beings that are transmigrating within samsara and One thing. And mountains and rivers and one's own self. How could there be any distinction? So each one of us coming and going within mountains and one thing there should be. No distinction. We are one with the mountain. Why then is it all divided into two sides? In this case, U and NU. How, somehow, we have to divide into two sides? Whenever we use any word, we divide the entire one, entire reality into two.

[23:05]

If U is together with mood. Or Buddha and human beings, delusion, enlightenment, all these dichotomies. When we use language, any words, a concept, and we cannot think without using those words and concepts. That means how we use our brain, Way is to make distinction into two or more. And I'm not you, you are me. This is a reading glass. That means this is not a book. If we don't think in this way, we don't need to practice.

[24:14]

Because we think in this way, somehow we feel the way we are living, our condition is not healthy. It's full of problems. And there should be a better condition or a better situation. So that's why we search the way. we start to find a better or healthy way of life. If we don't think in this way, there is separation or negation or question about our condition, how we live. That is the condition of our life at this moment. And we don't think this is right or healthy way of life. Therefore, we find better way of life. And at least that was how Buddha left his palace and practiced and found a way. So there is a kind of a separation between who we are and how we live and who we want to be or we should be.

[25:23]

And we try to find a path. How can we reach there from here? That is all about Buddhist teachings. And not only Buddhist teachings or spiritual practice, but in any other human activities, the point is we are not satisfied, we are not happy now. So we want to be better, become better. We want to accomplish something. This kind of activity is possible because we can think of the better condition, better way of life, better place than here. If we can only see that now and here, then there is no way to say there must be a better place and we must go there.

[26:31]

So, this is a starting point, I think, is civilization or human culture. kind of creating a dream, or a vision, or an idea, and we are not there yet. So we want to make effort to go that way, that direction. And this is the same in both cases of renunciation. of our desires and seeking nirvana or enlightenment or liberation from the desire. In both cases, the things happening in our mind are the same. Now we are not so good, so we want to become better. This separation from where we are and how we are and where we want to be

[27:37]

or how we want to be and how we should be. So there are three things. Who we are, who we want to be and who we should be. I think that's a very basic condition of all human activities. And of course in this case the masters, the buddhist masters, discussing in terms of liberation from suffering or being liberated from transmigration within samsara, that is, from suffering. And as we studied the twelve springs of causation Buddha taught the cause of suffering is basic dichotomy of consciousness and contact.

[28:48]

Contact is the object of consciousness. This dichotomy leads to contact. And we have present or unpleasant sensations. We want to be something pleasant and we don't want to be together with something unpleasant. So we chase after something pleasant and we try to stay away from something unpleasant. And this something, somehow, they come more often. So I want to escape from that. chasing after something and escaping from something, create something. Sometimes we are so successful and we are so happy, like heavenly beings. And more often we are not so successful and sometimes we feel our life is faded.

[29:59]

We feel like heavenly beings. And no condition lasts forever. So, as far as we live in this attitude, our life, you know, becomes transmigration within many different conditions. In traditional Buddhism, it's only six realms of samsara, but not only six, many more, and numerous. And each moment, not only from previous lifetime to this lifetime and this lifetime to the next lifetime but in each moment within this lifetime it transmigrates within different conditions and there is no time to be peaceful, settle down at this moment. If we want to be liberated from that condition of transmigration, somehow we have to work this dichotomy and contact.

[31:13]

And one way to avoid that transmigration is to avoid contact. One possible way. We can avoid contact with objects certain degree. You know, we can give up any possessions, so we don't need to compete with other people to get more. Or we can be free from responsibility, family or society, and live in a monastery or mountains or forest. and meditate and study how our mind works. The so-called Mahayana Buddhists try not to pursue that path, to avoid contact.

[32:26]

But somehow they think, and Mahayana Buddhists think, You know, within contact, we need to go beyond this dichotomy. And this is what all those Buddhist teachers and also Zen masters are talking about oneness of self and all beings. Instead of avoid the contact with object. If we see oneness of self and all the objects, then we don't need to chase after something or escape from something. But we can be in peace with, together with those objects. And at that time, Nama Rupa ceases to exist as Nama Rupa, as an object of this person. But we see that all beings within this network of interdependent origination

[33:28]

In his poem, Logan expressed this way of life. One person living within the mountains. So in this case, mountains is the entire network of interdependent origination. And we are coming and going with the mountains. And Logan said, The person who is in the mountain should love the mountain. And I think this love means to be one with the mountain. So mountain is this person's body. So mountain and this person is not subject and object. But when we think using our logical We're thinking this person's self is subject and the mountain is object.

[34:40]

And we do something. This is the basic structure of how we think. I do something. Or I think about something. So subject, object, and some kind of relations between these two. In this case, a star, or a dragon, surrounds the entire universe to become free from this kind of structure. But we wake up the reality that we are already within the mountains, within the network of interdependent origination, and we are connected with all beings. Therefore, we cannot say, I am here and all others are objects of my desire, of my thinking.

[35:46]

That is what one's sorrow of the entire universe means. So we are, we see, not we are, we see that we are part of the mountains. We see that I am only part of this interconnectedness. So there is no such thing called me, or subject, or self. That is to swallow up the entire universe means. So the self and all beings become one. Not become, but it is from the very beginning one thing. And that reality according to Mahayana Buddhist teaching is buddha nature. Because we are one with all beings. We are free from the self and into me, only this person.

[36:53]

That's the basic idea of buddha nature. And yet here is another problem. That means... So this is interdependent origination. Each thing is interconnected. So this person, each one of the beings is interconnected. So there is no independent entity. That is what oneness means. But still, Mountains, mountains, and this person, and this person. Cutting this, that is two or more. You know, the word interdependence is very interesting to me. Within this one word, interdependence, both independence and dependence are included. If we are not independent, we cannot think of interdependence.

[38:00]

And if we are completely independent, there are no such things called interdependent. So, in order to be interdependent, we need both independence and dependence. That is the source of these two heads, two ones in me. I am one with everything, and yet still I am I, you are you. One tender, one tender, and divider, divider, and I am I. So one staff swallows two people. In this case it means Shakyamuni and Inquan. But this could be interpreted as this one statement. swallow up mu and ur.

[39:04]

And yet, in Shobhogendo Fuji, being time, Dogen said, not only swallow up but also vomit. So we should swallow up and also at the same time we should vomit. That means we should clearly see the separation or interdependence of each and everything. I am not you, you are not me. I am not this. That means I am not a Christian or a Muslim. So that separation is also part of this interconnectedness. That makes the discussion kind of very complex. It's not so simple like that we should give up all the independence or equality and become one with everything. We are one with everything and yet we are different.

[40:09]

This is our difficulty to understand this reality we are living in. And that's why this reality is called wondrous dharma. Wondrous dharma means ungraspable. If we grasp one way, we miss another aspect. If we grasp that way, we miss that aspect. So, we need to hold both good and bad. And yet, if we keep them separate, then that is another problem. There's no fixed answer. This is within our life, the process of searching the way. We need to go through this difficulty, then we may go this way, And next moment we may go that way and grasp that thing and we are caught up in that aspect of life.

[41:30]

So we open our hand and try to return and yet next moment we go another way and grasp something else and we are caught up. So we need to open again, open the hand and return to the reality before any such separation or separation between oneness and duality or many-ness. And what Dogen is doing here is using words. He tries to be liberated from the limitation of words and logic. Of course, national teacher Ien Kan was a child of Matsu. Takei was Matsu's grandchild. Yet, in the way of his dharma grandfather, dharma grandson Takei, goes to be an old great man, that means very mature.

[42:41]

And in the way of his dharma father, the dharma son Ien Kan is still a coward youth. That means to again praise or appreciate Isan's no-diss-cho, or no-Buddha-nature, than in-kind true-Buddha-nature. The principle at work in target words is a principle of all sentient beings have no-Buddha-nature. This does not mean that In her case, no buddha nature is boundless and lax definition. It's boundless and lax definition means simple oneness. There's no distinction or definition. The original expression Dogen uses is that jo-boku, jo-boku is

[43:47]

Traditionally, Japanese carpenters, not only Japanese, but Chinese carpenters also use a thread with ink to make a straight line, to write a straight line. That is Jōboku. Jō means the thread or rope, and boku is ink. So in order to make a straight line, a carpenter is this tool. And this making a line is making separation. To make it clear, this is important. And from outside of this line, it's not important. So making things clear means making separation. In fact, Drogon is saying about his own Moo-Buddha nature. This Moo-Buddha nature is not simply oneness without any distinction, or definition, or line, or function of our mind that make separation.

[45:07]

But this is the way for it is present right there, received and maintained in the scriptures he embodies within his own house. His own house means his own life and scripture, sutras. So, when he tries to express what he lives in the sutras within his life, That means then our life is a sutra. And then we try to read the sutra. Then we study the Dharma. We study how we are, how we live. That is life. It's life. And this Nobusho, Isan Nobusho is the way he expressed what he read in the sutra.

[46:16]

within his life. Not within, but the sutra is itself his life, or his life is itself sutra. That means this expression, more Buddha nature, is the way he understands and expounds how life is, how our life is. So, from this sentence, Dogen Zenji Kandawa plays Isan's expression of new buddha-nature. And then he discusses what new buddha-nature means. It should be probed further. How could all sentient beings be buddha-nature? How could be buddhanature is who we show. How could they have a buddhanature?

[47:20]

And another way of reading this, who we should have buddhanature? So, Thak Doren is saying, human living beings cannot have, cannot be, something which is not living beings. And if buddhanature is a concept, Living beings and Buddha nature are two things. And if we say all living beings have or are Buddha nature, we try to make these two things into one, into connected. But once it's separated, it's not possible to connect and make it one thing. If a sentient being had a buddha nature, he would belong with a level of ethics. If sentient beings have such a thing called buddha nature, beside one's own life or being as a sentient being, such a thing is something like

[48:36]

Deity heretics call something extra. It's not real thing. That means buddha nature is simply buddha nature. 100% buddha nature. And living beings are 100% living beings. There is no way to add something even that is buddha nature. It would be a showing in a debut and trying to set him on top of sentient beings. Since buddha nature is just buddha nature, sentient beings are just sentient beings. If sentient beings are really buddha nature, we don't need to say, as Dogen said, about emptiness and form. If sentient beings are really buddha nature, We don't need to say sentient beings are or have buddhanature.

[49:41]

This activity of thinking, putting sentient beings and buddhanature as an object of this person's mind, thinking mind, and try to make a connection with these two. That kind of activity is against, not against, but is How can I say? Fiction. We are creating fiction that all sentient beings have Buddha nature. And we feel good. And we feel that is a good idea. And we like it. This kind of activity is in our mind. It's really kind of a, in Japanese expression, floating from the ground. we are already separate from the reality itself. It is not that sentient beings are from the first endowed with the Buddha nature.

[50:52]

So Buddha nature is something sentient beings can have as a possession. And also, Here, the essential point is, even though you seek the buddha nature, that means we don't have buddha nature yet. Now, at this moment, we don't have a buddha nature. So we want to get one. Because of this desire to get a buddha nature, we start to practice and study. Even though we practice in such a way, Buddha nature is not something to appear now for the first time. So if you negate both ideas, Buddha nature is from the beginning we have Buddha nature. But Buddha nature is something we need to attain as a result of our practice.

[51:54]

So do not imagine it is a matter of Chan drunk and Di getting drunk. Chan and Di are very common family name in China. So that means common people. And when one person drink beer, another person become drunk. That means Buddha nature and living beings are two people, two separate people. And one person lives here. There is no way another person runs. That means these two are completely independent. And yet completely one thing. Both are true. We cannot say, you know, this person drink and... We like a kind of a oneness that means when I drank beer, that person drank.

[53:14]

It's really kind of a nice thing to think. But it's not real reality. You know, I have to practice for my own, and you have to practice for your own. And you need to find you need to awaken to that reality for your own. My practice and my awakening, my understanding, cannot be yours. So, you have to practice, you have to study, you have to awaken by yourself. But, as Sakiro said, what I'm saying, what I'm talking now is my understanding from my own experience. of practice and studying. So I cannot share with you. What I am talking now in front of you is part of your life experience.

[54:14]

And from that you develop or cultivate your understanding and practice and find a way for your own. So, you know, he is moving back and forth. Complete independence and complete oneness. Try not to avoid kind of a duality. So, finally he says, If sentient beings originally possess the Buddha nature, they would not be sentient beings. They are buddha nature. Since they are sentient beings, they are not the buddha nature at all. And then Dogen Zen quote a saying from Hyakujo.

[55:24]

Hyakujo said, to preach that sentient beings have the buddha nature, is to disparage Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. To preach that sentient beings have no Buddha nature is also to disparage Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. I'm not sure if disparage is a good word or not here. I think it's more like a slander. Slander or abuse. Slander is the best word. If we say we have all living beings part or are buddha nature, we slander the buddhadharma or three treasures. And if we say we have no buddha nature or we are not buddha nature, then we slander the buddhadharma also. Yes? Is this the same word as the precept that we probably saw at the preceptual level?

[56:31]

Yes. So that means we violate the tenth precept of the ten major precepts. Either we say we sentient beings are buddha nature, or we have buddha nature, or we don't have buddha nature. Either way we violate the precepts and we slander the three precepts. Therefore, whether it is have Buddha nature or have no Buddha nature, both end up by disparaging or slandering the Three Treasures. Whichever we say, we slander the Three Treasures. That means both Enkan and Isan slandering the Three Treasures. That is against the base precept for bodhisattva practice.

[57:33]

but Dogen kind of expression to both Isan and Hyakujo. But this Pachan is Hyakujo, Hyakujo Eikai, Isan's teacher and also Obaku's teacher. But regardless of the disparagement or surrendering, or even if that is a surrendering, you cannot get by without making an utterance. Even if we surrender or are against the bodhisattva precept, we have to say something. And when we say something using words, it must be u or mu. That means, you know, when I receive 10 major precepts from my teacher, which I always say, during the precept ceremony, the teacher, preceptor, reads each of the 10 major precepts.

[58:55]

And the recipient has to say, and the preceptor asks, do you keep this or not. And I have to say, yes, I will. And in the case of the false precept, that is, do not make false speech. And Uchagoro said, if you are asked that you keep this precept or not, and if I say, yes, I will, he said, that is the first violation of the precept. And I think that is true. So as a Bodhisattva, we have to break the precept. And I have to say, yes, I will keep the precept of not telling a lie. And that is a lie. So even if we have to break the precept, still we have to say something.

[60:00]

But in fact, Dogen is saying, whether Wu or Ni is true, and both are not true. And Dogen asked to Isan and Hyakujo. The first question to Hyakujo. It may well be disparaging was thundering, therefore it's a violation of the precept. But has the Buddha nature been really switched or not? Before Dogen kind of complained, in all those sutras and question and answer among Zen masters, they only discuss whether living beings have buddhanature or not, but they don't discuss what is buddhanature.

[61:07]

According to Dogen, that is a more important question than whether we have buddhanature or not. And Wu and Mu is Dogen's answer to this question. That means Wu and Mu are the two sides of one reality. This reality is itself buddha-nature. Nothing else. It's not a matter of we have or we not have. So, a dōgen question to a hyakujō is, who or more are surrounding the three treasures? And then, have you seen fact in buddha-nature or not? And in the next section, Dogen quotes Hyakujo's saying, and I think he still did. And Hyakujo did.

[62:08]

Even granting it has been preached without the Buddha nature being totally implicated in the preaching. Any preaching of it would have to occur together with the hearing of it. This means saying something about buddhanature is the function of buddhanature. And if someone talks about buddhanature, someone is listening to that buddhanature. Both the person who is speaking and the person who is listening are buddhanature. So there is no way we can get out of buddhanature and think about buddhanature. Because everything is an expression or manifestation of buddha-nature. Even question about it, even negate about it, even fight against it, that is all buddha-nature.

[63:15]

Next question from Dogen to Takei. Even though you articulated that all sentient beings have no buddha-nature, You did not say all buddha nature have no sentient beings. He asked the same question to Enkan. All buddhas have no sentient beings or that all buddha natures have no buddha nature. Still less could you have seen even in your dreams All Buddhas have no dissonance. This is Dogen's logic. He changed all the parts of the sentence and questioned from each and every angle. And he didn't give us the answer.

[64:18]

So he is showing us how to question. and we need to enquire as in our practice. So what he is writing here is not a set of truths we have to believe but he is showing us how to enquire the truth. That can't be written. So now let's see if you can come up with a response or not. This Dogen is saying to us And don't think he says to Hyakujo at this time, that this is to us who are studying or reading this writing. What do you think? How do you express? I have 20 more minutes, so I'm going to talk on section 10.

[65:35]

In this section, Dogen Zenji quotes another saying of Hyakujo Ekan. And it seems Dogen Zenji likes this saying, so he didn't question so much, but he just followed. Chan Master Tachi of Mount Go-Chan, this is Hyakujo, addressed the assembly, Buddha is the highest Rinku, the highest of all victims, the person who maintains the Buddha way. It is Buddha being Buddha nature. This Buddha being Buddha nature is butsu u busho. So it can be Buddha have Buddha nature or Buddha is being Buddha nature or u busho.

[66:44]

I think he quote in order to show this expression Buddha have Buddha nature. That is a kind of answer to Dogen's question to Isan, whether all Buddhas have no buddhanature or not. And Hyakujo said, Buddha have buddhanature. It is a guiding teacher. It means Buddha. is being able to utilize a way that is utterly unhindered. It is unimpeded wisdom. In all this, it readily utilizes cause and effect.

[67:49]

It is a free activity of seeking enlightenment and enlightening others. It is the vehicle that carries on cause and effect. Negotiating life, it is not held back by life. Negotiating death, it is not hindered by death. Negotiating the five skandhas, it is like a gate freely opening. It suffers no restriction by the five skandhas. It goes and stops at will, leaves and enters unhuman. Inasmuch as it does, distinctions between high and low, intelligent and ignorant, are immaterial.

[68:54]

And since this is the same even done to the body of the tiniest ant, all is a wondrous land of purity beyond our comprehension. This is the saying of Hyakujo. So he is talking about Buddha, but this Buddha is not Buddha as a person, but Buddha as a reality itself. And this reality is our highest vehicle. Vehicle means like a car, which carries us human beings or living beings into nirvana from samsara. And this is the easiest vehicle, most luxurious vehicle, which all living beings can get on. and being carried. That's why it's called the highest vehicle.

[69:58]

So this is bigger than Mahayana. The highest of all wisdoms, because it's reality itself. And wisdom is the ability to see the reality as it is. The reality it is, is highest wisdom. The person who maintains the Buddha way, So Buddha is the, here it's a person, but Buddha is Buddha way itself. And it is Buddha being Buddha nature as an entire network of interdependent origination. That is Buddha and that is also Buddha nature. And it is a guiding teacher. This entire network of interdependent ordination is our guiding teacher, and actually we are part of it.

[71:01]

It is being able to utilize a way that is utterly unhindered, that means very liberated, free, and it is unimpeded wisdom. In all this, it readily utilizes cause and effect within this Buddha as a reality. Cause and effect, or cause and result, or cause and conditions. This causality or interdependent origination within time and space is really working within it. It is a free activity of seeking enlightenment and enlightening others. Enlightenment and enlightening others is Bodhisattva activity or Buddha's activity.

[72:02]

Buddha awakens to the reality by himself and guides all people to awaken to the same reality. So, practice for one's own sake and also to help others is Buddha's and also Bodhisattva's practice. And it is a vehicle that carries on cause and effect. So this is the same thing as she said before. Negotiating life, it is not held back by life. That means we are living, we are born and live and die. And so during our lifetime, we need to negotiate with our life. But it is not held back by life. It is not impeded or hindered or obstructed by life.

[73:06]

It doesn't exist. Negotiating this process of life from birth and death is also a process of negotiating life. And yet, at the same time, this process of life is a process of negotiating death. That means, in any time we may die. So negotiating death, it is not hindered by death. So we use life and death freely. This is how, you know, Arthur Bruegel wrote book on five Zen teachers in Japan, Sawaki Roshi, Uchiyama Roshi, and Mikoyama Sodo Roshi, and Kato Kodan Roshi, and one Japanese woman, a great Zen teacher. Her name was... I forgot her name. Anyway, he entitled the book, Living and Dying in the Zen.

[74:13]

Our common sense is we practice Zazen within life and death. But those people's practice is a little different. They didn't practice within their life and death, but they live and die within Zazen. That's the difference. That means Their practice is not to escape from life or from death. But he and they, all of them, have expected life and death. Living and dying will hinder them. That is the expression of freedom. Even though we live and die, but we are not hindered by life and death. the process of living and dying as for the sake of Dharma, what we practice.

[75:20]

So our process of living and dying is a process of practice. Negotiating the Five Skandhas, it is like a gate freely opening. It suffers no restriction by the Five Skandhas. This means, even though we are five skandhas and objects are also a group of materials and other things, even though we are negotiating, living together with objects, but we are not obstructed by the objects. It goes and stops at will, leaves and enters, This is forever we are. We cannot stop.

[76:22]

But we are coming and going. And maybe we can stop for a while, but we have to move again. But this is a process of, from one side this is a process of transmigration, but from another side this is a free movement. Inasmuch as it is thus, distinction between high and low, intelligent and ignorant, and immaterial, those differences, or classifications, or dichotomies, good and bad, enlightened and delusional, are not so important. And since this is the same even down to the body of the tiniest ant, tiny insect. So the life of ants and the life of human beings are the same thing.

[77:30]

According to Hyakujo, whether we are born as ants, whether we are born as human beings, or any other form of life, we are just freely coming and going at the five skeletons. We just move. as a part of universal movement of all beings within this network. All is a wondrous land of purity beyond any complication. This beyond any complication is the same as unrestable or wondrous. So if we can live with such an attitude, this life or this world become really a buddhanam. That is the fact I actually think. And rest of the sections don't comment on this thing.

[78:39]

I think five minutes is enough to talk about this. Four chants for Hyakujo's verse. Five skandhas is this present indestructible body of ours. This body and mind are five skandhas. And here, Lorenzo, this is undestructible body of ours. Undestructible body means blood body. But he said this Our body, concrete body, that is a collection of five skandhas, are undistracted. This expression came from another koan of, I think, Joshu. Joshu, someone asked Joshu, what is the undistracted nature, Buddha nature? And Joshu said, five skandhas.

[79:42]

Four great elements and five skandhas, she was gone. The monk asked again, those are destructive. Those are, you know, arise, stay for a while, and disappear. So those five skandhas cannot be the undestructive nature. So the monk asked again, what is undestructive nature? Then Josh again said, four great elements are the five skandhas. So this is This is Buddha's body that is undistracted. That means it never appears and never disappears. As the Heart Sutra says, no arising and no perishing, no coming and no going. And yet we are coming and going. We are born and die. Our present activity moment to moment, so our very concrete activity in each moment, are gate freely open.

[80:59]

The gate of five skandhas are very freely open. Does not suffer impediment from the five skandhas. Five skandhas didn't obstruct five skandhas. They are so free, always not changing, but only This person doesn't like it. I don't want to change. That's the basic problem. I love being like this, so I don't want to disappear. That is my most basic problem. As living beings, we are born. We have, within our life, as living beings, two very basic contradicted natures. I don't know the word, but that is, all living beings have to die.

[82:04]

That is one undeniable reality. And another reality is All living beings don't want to die. We want to live forever. But we have to die. This is the most fundamental contradiction in our life. As living beings, we have to die. No one can deny this. And yet, as another undeniable reality, we don't want to learn. This is a basic cause of problems we have to face. So, the answer to this, to the problems about life and death, is very

[83:07]

kind of energy, and that is fat dog energy to us. That is, completely utilizing life, it cannot be held back by life. Completely utilizing death, it cannot be obstructed by death. Do not vainly cherish life. Do not foolishly dread death. They are beyond life and death. They are where the buddha nature is. This process of life and death is where buddha nature is. So, clinging with attachment to life, shrinking in affluence from death is un-Buddhist. So if we are Buddhist,

[84:08]

we should not cling to our life, and we should not be afraid of death. Life and death is how Buddha nature works, functions. In Shobo Genzo or Shoji, or Life and Death, Zogen Zenji clearly describes about this point. So if you are interested, In Dogen's teaching about this, please try to read Shogogen's Shoji. Actually, I wrote a copy of the English translation, but I don't have time to talk about it. And it's not so difficult. Anyway, to realize that life and death are a combination of conditions manifesting themselves before your eyes. is to be able to utilize a way that is totally unhindered.

[85:13]

And this universal movement in which all beings are connected and coming and going appear, stay for a while, and disappear. This reality of impermanence and interconnectedness and non-self. And he said, this is a Buddha. This is the Buddha of the highest people. This reality of network is the Buddha. And this is where this Buddha is. This is where Buddha is. This reality itself is Buddha. And there is the wondrous land of purity. This is Buddha's land. We are already using Silagram. I think that's all I have to say this morning.

[86:22]

Any questions? Please. You left me in the dust yesterday, so I wonder if you would like to go back. OK. Pardon? Pardon. Excuse me. on the show is nature. Oh, I have the other one for the show name. Oh, this one. Yes. The what and the show on the left seems to be more of a duality.

[87:28]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ