Good afternoon. So, Ken asked if... Ken asked if we could study this Vesicle of Fuji by Master Dogen. Keep talking. So here we are. I've got three different translations, originally two, but then I found this other one. I'll tell you what they are. There's the original translation

[01:02]

that I know of, by Masao Abe and Marlon Mardell back in the 70s. And then there's the one of Takashi Tanahashi and my cohorts. I call it the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye. And then there's this one, just for the time being, or just for a while, for the whole of time is the whole of existence. This is from Shasta Abbey, and probably by Mr. Naimon, remember Naimon, who translated Everybody liked his translation very much.

[02:15]

So I, and this has a little, it has a nice introduction. This one is a nice introduction, and it's, I think it's a little different. The thing about Kahn's translation is no footnotes. And Norman Waddell and Abbe have always had really good footnotes. So, there actually are a lot of footnotes in... they're not in the dewdrop version. There are, but they're not... there's some. Yeah. There's some, but it's... Anyway, this was not trans—this was not primitive footnotes. So, Naiman has a lot of good footnotes. is for you to kind of put your copies together and we'll start.

[03:35]

First I want to read this introduction and then we'll start and then as we go along to look at the other translations and compare the And, as Naimon says, he meant it to be studied, not just presented, but actually studied. So, you know, it was not easily grokked. So, this is what we can do.

[04:47]

Well, first let me read the introduction. The translator's introduction. The title varies a little bit, but not much. But Neumann, he kind of breaks down the title a little bit more. or just for a while, but for the whole of the time is the whole of existence. Because in the time, let me say, the time being, I mean, what else is being time? So, being is time, and time is being. That is the theme of this classical. That's the Dogen.

[05:48]

So the translator's introduction, uji, is Dogen's discourse on the significance of anatta and anicca, the Buddhist terms for no permanent abiding self, that's anatta, and continual change, impermanence, which is anicca, and their application to treading the paths of right understanding and right thought. It is not, strictly speaking, a discourse, for Dogen gave the text to his monks in written form, which suggests that he intended it to be read over and studied carefully rather than to be absorbed by hearing it only once. Because it is linguistically possible to translate the title as being and time, some modern scholars have been led to assume that Dogen was engaging in a form of philosophical speculation akin to that of some Western existentialist

[06:57]

Such an approach, however, would seem counter to the purpose behind a discourse given by a Buddhist master, since speculative thinking, philosophical or otherwise, is a type of mentation that trainees are working to disengage themselves from, so that they may progress toward realizing spiritual truth, which lies beyond the reaches of speculation. The key term which is presented as the title has meanings which no single English rendering fully encompasses. To begin with, uji, the Japanese pronunciation for the Chinese you sure, has long been a common everyday phrase in China, as it has been to the Japanese when read as aru toki. Encompassing in both languages, such English equivalent says, just for the time being, there is a time when, at some time, now and then, and the like.

[08:03]

During his presentation, Dogen also explores the two components from which the word uji is made, drawing examples of their usage from everyday Japanese. The first half, u, refers to existence or being. The second, G has a variety of post-English equivalents, including time, a time, times, the time when, at the time when, as well as hour or hours when used with a number, or as signifying what is temporal, sometimes, for a time, etc. The phrase arutoki has already appeared with some frequency in several earlier discourses, particularly as a phrase in an extended koan story to signal that an important event is about to happen, such as a one-to-one exchange with the master that will trigger the disciple's realization of what truth is.

[09:15]

In this context, it conveys the sense of, and then, one day. So underlying the whole of Dogon's presentation is his own experience of no longer being attached to any sense of a personal self that exists independent of time and of other things, an experience which is part and parcel of his dropping off of body and mind. From this perspective of his, anything having existence, which includes every thought and thing, is inextricably bound to time, indeed can be said to be time. for there is no thought or thing that exists independent of time. Time and being are but two aspects of the same thing, which is the interrelationship of anicca, the ever-changing flow of time, and anatta, the absence of any permanent self existing within or independent of this flow of time.

[10:20]

Dogen has already voiced this perspective in Discourse 1, A Discourse on Doing One's Utmost in Practicing the Way of the Buddhas. That's in Bendawa. He uses, that's his nomenclature for Bendawa, for the title, like a spiritual question. So he said that he already voiced this perspective in various places. A Discourse on Doing One's Utmost in Practicing the Way of the Buddhas, that's Vendawa. And in Discourse Three, on the Spiritual Question as it Manifests Before Your Very Eyes, called Genjokoan, where he discussed the Shrenikin theory of an eternal self and the Buddhist perception of no permanent self. In the present discourse, Dogen uses

[11:24]

has his central turn, a poem by Great Master Yaksa Igen. Now he's using Japanese names for the Chinese masters. Great Master Yaksa Igen, the ninth Chinese ancestor in the Soto lineage, we chant his name in the morning. In the Chinese version, each line of this poem begins with the word uji. which functions for the time being, and so forth. In the Chinese version, each line of the poem begins with the word uji, which functions to introduce a set of couplets describing temporary conditions that appear to be contrastive, but which in reality do not stand against each other. These conditions comprise what might be referred to as an eye at some moment of time.

[12:28]

So I'm going to read you an example of that. It's usually written, although he writes a little differently. An old Buddhist said, for the time being, that's Uchi, I stand beside the highest mountain peaks. For the time being, I move in the deepest depths of the ocean floor, which is how the classical unfolds. For the time being, I'm three heads and eight arms. For the time being, I'm eight feet or 16 feet. For the time being, I am a staff or a whisk. For the time being, I am a pillar or a lantern. For the time being, I'm Mr. Chong and Mr. Lee. For the time being, I'm the great earth and the heavens above. That's what he said. In the Chinese version, which I just read, each line of the poem begins with the word uji, which functions to introduce a set of couplets describing temporary conditions that appear to be contrastive, but which in reality do not stand against each other.

[13:37]

They stand alone. So these conditions comprise what might be referred to as an I at some moment of time. This is the use of the word I that does not refer to some permanent self. abiding unchanged over time as the Shrenikin maintained." So the Shrenikin theory was, Mr. Shrenikin stated that he insisted on the permanent, that there is a permanent self which abides in each one and continues throughout time. but to a particular set of transient conditions at a particular time. In other words, there is no permanent, unchanging yaksana, only a series of ever-changing conditions called dharmas, one segment of which is perceived as a sentient being, which is for convenience, conventionally referred to as the yaksana.

[14:51]

So this is a series of dharmas which are coalescing and changing together, kind of like a sparkler, you know. A series of sparks, a series of dharmas or constituents that coalesce and keep changing, but there's no real center to them. Was Shrenikin a Buddhist? Shrenikin, well, Vogel doesn't think so. No. He thought so. Yeah, he thought so. Was he in the Soto line, or no? No, this was long before. This is, I'm not sure whether this was India or China. I think it was India.

[15:51]

India. Yeah, this was long before then. I think so. I thought it was, he was... It was Buddhist time. He was Buddhist time, he was challenging Buddha. Yes, yes, he was in Buddhist time. So, um, and Buddha said there, stated that he, um, he didn't believe there was such a thing as a soul at Kip's group. And Shrenika said, well, he thought there was. And it's not that they argued, I think Shrenika came just after he died. Oh, here's something. Sranika was Vimvisara. King Vimvisara? Yeah. That's what it says here. It says here, yeah. It says it on the internet. No, I think in Buddha's time, King Vimvisara.

[16:53]

He converted him. Yeah. But maybe not completely. Well no, they're talking about him before he was converted. Well, he was a Buddhist before it was... I don't think he was converted. He was... Anyway, I don't want to get hung up there. So... So this series, Ever-Changing Conditions, which the Dharma's coalescing and changing, looks like a person, and is perceived as a sentient being, which is for convenience, conventionally referred to as yakusan. So, you know, this thing holds for you. You are a series of dharmas rolling along, ever-changing and coalescing, and for convenience's sake we call it Joe or Sally.

[18:01]

So, neither a permanent self or something other, let's see, where am I? It's a useful way of expressing the condition of anatta, and in this sense it is used to refer to a state of being that is neither a permanent self nor something separate from other. It is the I referred to in one description of a Kensho experience, that is, the experiencing of one's Buddha nature as the whole universe becoming I. Hence, when the false notion of having a permanent self is abandoned, then what remains is just uchi, the time in some form of being persists. After presenting Yakuza's poem, Dogen focuses on the aspect of the poem that does not deal with metaphors, images, symbols, et cetera, and which is the one element in the poem that readers are most likely to pay small heed to. the phrase uji itself.

[19:04]

His opening statement encapsulates the whole of what he is talking about in this text. Namely, the phrase, for the time being, implies that time in its totality is what existence is, and existence in all its occurrences is what time is. Dogen then begins to unravel this statement describing not only its implications, but also its applications to practice. The points that he takes up are dealt with as they come to him, as they flow forth. Therefore, he talks about time for the time being, and then talks about existence for the time being, and then goes back to time just for a while, before moving on to some other aspect just for a while. And it's really confusing. In other words, his text is not only about Uji, it is written from the perspective of one who lives Uji and who also writes Uji, so that the very way in which he presents his discussion reflects what Uji is about.

[20:12]

That is to say, he holds onto nothing as absolute, for all that is phenomenal, that is, every thought and thing that ever arises, is just for the time being. Within the original text, there are sudden unexpected shifts, as though Dogen were deliberately trying to help his readers bypass or short-circuit a purely intellectual comprehension. I mean, what might he be saying in order to catch a glimpse of that state of being which Dogen himself had already reached? To help the present-day reader keep from making unintentional links between sentences that appear in sequence but which take up different points, Dogon's text has been divided accordingly." So he made these sections. Although the entire discourse contains a number of remarks that may require some reflection to penetrate, Near the end of his discourse, Dogen has an extended discussion that may prove daunting to some readers because of its succinctness.

[21:19]

To make what is being said there more accessible, paraphrases have been supplied in footnotes, which make explicit in English what is implicit in the original. readers who find it helpful to refer to the introduction footnotes may find it rewarding to reread just the text. There are aspects of this discourse in particular that may well open up to them through encountering the flow of Dogen's presentation without interruption. and going back and forth. So that's true, but I think we have to look for those. Yes? So, is this verse, what part of this discourse is this verse? That's Yakusan. What? Yakusan. No, I know, but I mean, oh, I see. This is Yakusan's verse.

[22:31]

And this is where, what Dogen is commenting on, basically. And this is usually the case in Dogen's classical The first paragraph is the case, basically, and then the rest is commentary. So he has a different kind of translation than the usual. He puts it in more of a, you know, In order to compare these translations, open up the other one, because they're both the same. So in this opening form, an ancient Buddha, Raksana, causes, he doesn't use the I pronoun.

[23:58]

He just says, for the time being, stand on top of the highest peak. For the time being, proceed along the bottom of the deepest ocean. For the time being, three heads and eight arms, or the fighting demon. For the time being, an eight or sixteen foot body of a Buddha. For the first time, a staff or a whisk. For the first time, a pillar or a lantern. For the first time, and then, um, um, Abbe. I always prefer to use Abbe because I knew Abbe pretty well. And I never did know what else. I think that Avi was the main translator. He said, an old Buddha said, for the time being, I stand. For the time being, I move. For the time being, I am. So he used the I pronoun. So that's translators. prerogative. Translators, translations, you know, are never perfectly, they always include the translator's perspective.

[25:09]

And it's inevitable because you can't help it, because the translator has to, if the translator translates literally, it doesn't make much sense. So there has to be some interpretation along with the translator. So in Naimon's translation, his interpretation is a little different from those two. And he says, a former Buddha once said a verse, standing atop a soaring mountain peak is for the time being, and plunging down to the floor of the ocean's abyss is for the time being. That's quite a different style. Being triple-headed and eight-armed is for the time being, And being a figure of a Buddha standing 16 feet tall or sitting 8 feet high is for the time being. Being a monk's traveling staff or a ceremonial Hatso is for the time being. And being a pillar supporting a temple or a stone lantern before the meditation hall is for the time being. Being a next door neighbor or a man in the street is for the time being.

[26:12]

That's quite a difference, because he doesn't use the Chinese names of these two ordinary Chinese men. And being the whole of the great earth and boundless space is for the time being. And then, of course, he has a footnote which explains what these figures are. Dogen appears to understand Yakuzan's image of a figure of a Buddha standing 16 feet tall and sitting eight feet high as referring to one who has realized his or her Buddha nature and lives accordingly at all times. It is likely that standing and sitting are references to the four bodily postures. Standing, walking, sitting, and reclining is basic Buddhism. They talk about the four postures of a person. Basic postures, standing, walking, sitting. And they use that sometimes for expression. The first two represent active modes, that is standing and walking.

[27:16]

And the latter two passive ones, that is, whether one is inwardly or outwardly active, whether one is asleep or awake. So being triple-headed and eight-armed is an illusion distributive of several guardian beings, particularly temples, and their trainees. The most likely candidate in the Zen tradition would be Achalanta, Achalanata, and the steadfast Bodhisattva, and Raja Garaja. The passionate bodhisattva, the former is sometimes associated with the firm commitment of family and so forth. The footnote continues on the next page. They have overcome all hindrances to realizing enlightenment as they persist in helping others to realize Truth. The latter has associations with a passionate desire to help all sentient beings realize Buddhahood. So please see the glossary. We don't have it. for the metaphorical meaning amongst traveling staff, a ceremonial hasu, a temple service.

[28:23]

So the metaphor of amongst traveling staff is got sometimes shakujo and ushujo. Shakujo has the rings on it, and when the monks were traveling, tap to your stamp and the rings would tingle and that would kind of chase away the little animals and let people know you're coming. And the hospital is Zen teachers whisk. So this is a more florid kind of translation. And then Abe also has a footnote, quite a long footnote.

[29:31]

But this footnote is not that different. Actually, so we don't need to, they're basically the same. Question? Yes. I have a question. You relate this morning in the lecture, Buddha demonstrated a foot in one inside and one outside of the threshold. Yeah. Where would the staff go? Well, it depends on what hand he's using. Is he left-handed or right-handed? He's left-handed. No, he's right-handed. Because everybody had to be right-handed in those days. Nowadays we can be left-handed. So where was that staff? What about it? Where was it? It's in my... No, in the story. What staff? In the story? You said that his foot was on one side of the threshold.

[30:35]

and then on another side, and he said, am I coming or going? Yeah. So that was when he, if he's, if he's begging the staff. Doesn't say. Doesn't say. Okay. Thank you. Doesn't talk about his mother either. No, it didn't do that either. Okay. Okay. So, I would like to have other people read, besides me, but when you read, I don't want you to read like... What that means is it's just being a little bit... I want you to read as if you're really trying to understand it. Slowly and carefully. And in sentences. Expressive. Anybody want to try that? Go ahead. Where should we start? We'll start with... The time being needs time. That's a good question.

[31:40]

It doesn't matter which one. Just read one, because we're going to compare the others. For the time being... I'm sorry. The time being means time, just as it is. Is being, and being is all time. The time being means time, just as it is, is being, and being is all time. The 16-foot golden body Buddha is time. Because it is time, it has time's glorious golden radiance. You must learn to see the glorious radiance in the 12 hours of your day. The demonic Asura with three heads and eight arms is time. Because it is time, it can be in no way different from the 12 hours of your day. Although you never measure the length or brevity of the twelve hours, their swiftness or slowness, you still call them the twelve hours. As evidence of their going and coming is obvious, you should not come to doubt them.

[32:46]

Even though you do not have doubts about them, that is not to say you know them, for the sentient being's doubting of the many and various things unknown to him are naturally vague and indefinite, the course his doubtings take will probably not bring him to coincide with his present doubt. Nonetheless, the doubts themselves are, after all, none other than time. Okay, that's a good place to stop. his doubts themselves are nothing other than time. He went down the road and then there he was. And at that moment he looked around and said, Uji.

[33:48]

And he had no choice. Like the guy going in and out the door. If you're looking at him from the west, he's going in. If you're looking at him from the east, maybe he's coming out. So where he is at the moment of doubting or not being very clear about his doubting, that's where he is. And he can recognize that as his being. That's my comment. He can recognize that as his being. He can say, oh, I'm the one who just dropped my chopsticks. I'm the one who doubts. I'm the one who lost my place. And if I'm that, actually that is not it, not I. But this is the time. This is the being. That action, that outcome is present. That's what I'm thinking. So I drop my chopstick at just that moment. And what happens next, I wish I weren't such a klutz, or I'm amazed that I didn't drop them both, or something. That's a different being.

[34:51]

And now it gets a thousand confusing. Okay. There's a sentence here I find really helpful. It makes sense to me. even though it's complicated. Although you never measure the length of gravity of the 12 hours, there's swiftness or slowness, you still call them the 12 hours. It's true. Well, if I'm sitting in the Zendo and in a bad mood, 40 minutes can feel like 12 hours. I still call it 40 minutes. And so it's arbitrary. It's just a name for something. And experientially, an hour could mean many, many things. It's interesting that they use the term hours. I wonder what the actual terms are, because we measure time.

[36:02]

in terms of minutes, hours, seconds, right? And it's just arbitrary, somewhat arbitrary. But did they measure things in those kind of terms? I think they measured them, I mean, if you think about the machine, they talked about the various watches. Yeah. And I think that meant the flow of sand. determined, I mean it's either that, there's also the watch which is determined by the function of light, you know, so that's another, either it's time that has an arbitrary measure or time that's measured against the unfolding of natural phenomena. One of the footnotes says that 12 hours was their equivalent of what we would have as a 24-hour day, which again points to the Was it an hour twice as long back then as it is now?

[37:10]

Yeah. But I think there's cosmic time, and they understood a lot about cosmic time. But I think that in Dogen's time, It wasn't a set standard. Like we have daylight savings time, right? So we change, and they had a kind of daylight savings time for every month. So for the seasons. So they would change the time of their practices according to the light, the seasons, as they changed. There is a diagram for that, actually, but I have it somewhere. But that's true.

[38:13]

You know, time was fairly flexible. It just made up. But it had to do with the seasonal cycles. But in measured ways, it was also, in temple life, the length of the stick of incense. So that's the way they measured it. In Saachen periods, and other periods, the length of time it takes the incense to burn down. So, I had a question about the very first sentence. Yes. The time being means time just as it is, as being. So, what I'm getting hung up here is, means time just as it is. Just as... So, just as it... As it is. As it is. Yes, exactly. What is that? Well, let's see. The time being means time just as it is.

[39:17]

So, time just as it is, as being. So, I can... That's not a complicated... But just as it is is pointing to this arbitrariness we've been referring to. Because just as it is depends on who's looking. I think just as it is is beyond nomenclature. Okay. But it's still, it's just as it is to whom? Oh, just as it is in itself. But that's good. To whom? Yeah. That's a good question. to an aunt, to your aunt, to a monkey or a person, to one who is interested. Yeah, that's true. Otherwise it wouldn't be just as it is. It has to be different for each person, and it's always appropriate for the person asking the question.

[40:22]

That's who it's for. Yeah, it's appropriate for the person asking the question. But it's not about the passage of time, it's about the experience of being. Yes, not about the passage of time. He gets into the passage of time later. We think that time passes, and we just take that for granted. But actually, one aspect of time can be that time passes, according to our experience, but actually, time doesn't go anywhere. Where does it go? Where does it end up? And he's saying that, he's trying to get, I think, to the point that also being ends in the same conundrum. Here is being. from this angle in this experience, but does it continue? Absolutely not. Because it meets another person, or another energy, and it becomes another time.

[41:26]

Or another constellation of... Here and now. Here is existence, and now is time. So everything is here and now. But we seem to think that time goes someplace. I mean, there's that idea. So Dogen explores various understandings of time that are beyond. We're talking about the variable dimensions of time.

[42:29]

What I think that part of the complexity for us is that we have a linear idea of time in the West and actually what you see, I was just looking, you see that the Japanese had a whole lot of problems creating the clock because their hours were actually of different length. the hours of the day were at different lengths according to the season as well. So it was a very complex issue until the 19th century when basically they caved to us. But even in Dogen's time you can see like the foundation for his breathing and fluid idea of time was not just something that he made up, but it was something that was already deep in the culture. Yeah, I think so. Let's go on a little bit.

[43:34]

Which one were you reading from? Abbe? Yeah. Okay, well let's continue then with Abbe. And where did you start? We set the self out in a ray, and make that the whole world. Here's what I would like you to do. Stop at the end of every sentence. Otherwise there's no way to compare anything. Because every sentence is waiting. We set the self out in a ray, and make that the whole world. We sent out the self in a ray to make out the whole world. Let's look at the footnote.

[44:37]

The self, or I, is the true self. Not the self in its, excuse me, the self in its suchness, emo. From the standpoint of this self, this time being, being time, all things are manifestations of itself. that what we actually see when we look at the world is our self set out in a ray. Except where reference is clearly to the unenlightened self, the words self and I are synonymous with being time. So how do we set out the self? Our true self is the whole universe, so the universe is set out in a ray as us. I was reading the footnotes and I was really struck by this phrase, the idea of, and that's what I was saying, you look at it from one angle or another angle, the constellation in the sky, for example, would look like, not a bear, but something different, right?

[45:42]

So, when we set ourselves out in a ray, it has to do with taking stock of our world and setting up priorities and importances and less importances, and that's where we are, or that's our being at that moment. So, in a ray, he's trying to, I think, say that it's in a ray, but if you put it in a slightly different array, it would be a completely different moment, but it's still the moment that it is, because it's in that array. Okay. There's a couple hands up. I was just looking at the Shasta Abbey. Translation, and to me that had a little bit different name than the footnote. Since we human beings are continually... You have to speak up because pigeons are being turned in.

[46:44]

Since we human beings are continually erasing the bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion a whole universe, we must take care to look upon this wealthier living beings and physical objects as some time things. So to me that sounds not so much like enlightened self, whole universe, but you know, the mind's habit of putting things into boxes and sequences when they're not really. Bits and pieces of putting together something, yeah. Sergeant, this reminds me a little bit of Tozans. Everywhere I go, I meet myself. It is not me. It is me, but I am not you.

[47:49]

It's like that. Okay, you got to the first sentence. We must see all the various things of the whole world as so many times. Which translation? I went back to the Aave. Okay. 49 still? Yeah. We must see all the various things of the whole world as so many times. Okay. These things do not get in each other's way any more than various times get in each other's way. Okay. Dogen uses that phrase a lot. that dharmas don't hinder each other, and times don't hinder each other. Go ahead.

[48:56]

Because of this, there is an arising of the religious mind at the same time, and it is the arising of time of the same mind. So unless somebody has something to say, he's just, you know, switching things, right? Standing from one point and then looking at it from the opposite point. Because of this is the arising of the religious mind, and at the same time it is the arising of time of the same mind. It seems like he's talking about, you know, our world, the causes and conditions in our lives are always changing and our sensory input is always changing. So, obviously, the world we see at any time changes as these causes and conditions change, right?

[50:08]

So, is he saying that we get caught in a particular view of things rather than actually seeing the causes and conditions that are changing in our world? In other words, we're always creating a world by our thoughts and our sensations and whatever. And yet, and a lot of time it gets fixed, We tend to fix it at some point, right? We get stuck on a particular set of conditions. All of us are pretty stuck on a set of conditions now. And we've created a world where there's demons and Asuras and everybody. But if we're truly perceiving time and recognizing that these things are changing over time, then the world we create is a different world. That's where I'm getting.

[51:09]

Our self is different because our self is flowing and changing all the time. So what are you referring to exactly? Because of this, there is a rising of religious mind at the same time. And it is the arising of the same mind. So it is with practice and attainment in the way we set ourself out in a ray, and we see that. So I'm having trouble with the fact that we set out in a ray and we see it. In this moment, we're setting out the array of this moment.

[52:15]

But that isn't our only array. Well, maybe this will reveal itself as we go on. He's not saying we set out. He says the self. The self sets out. The self arrays. So I like this other translation. in its colloquial manner, since we human beings are continually arranging the bits and pieces of what we share. So if we experience in order to fashion the whole universe, this continually arranging is what I'm thinking about. May I comment? It's also, as we arrange our time, we also arrange our ideas of self. The time is also arising. It's the arising of the time of the same mind, he says. Arising the time of the same mind means that the time comes up and this arrangement comes up.

[53:23]

But there's no self that walks into a time and suddenly sees things, or there's no time that we encounter that was waiting for us to discover, or was anything other than our arrangement of it. So he says, and you missed the word arising of the time of the same mind, that's why I called it out. So if we read it again, because of this, there is an arising of the religious mind at the same time, and it is the arising of time of the same mind. The arising time of the same mind, we could say. Yes, so basically I think that the time and the... existence or being and time arise at the same time. I think he's just showing us various aspects of how, you know, this happens and that happens, but basically it's time being.

[54:28]

I'm not so sure that it's the events that are so important as that the illustrations of the time being. I think that's what he's saying. It seems like he's saying it's our imaginations too, like we're constantly creating the world in each moment. And then I think Uchiyama Roshi said something like, you know, when I die my Yes, yes. Kind of related to that, you know, constantly creating the world, or pulling out as an array. Isn't there some other place where he sort of talks about not actualizing the 10,000 things, but allowing the 10,000 things? Yeah, the 10,000 things come forward, and knowledge, so. that we advance toward the 10,000 things.

[55:55]

It's a kind of division that the 10,000 things advance to us, allowing the 10,000s to come toward us. In a sense, he does that in this last sentence. The first part is, we set ourself out in the ray, which is us bringing ourself forward. And the second sentence there is that ourself is time. Yes. It seems like he's, it's just, I keep thinking about how I usually think of it. Like, I usually either think of the world as fixed and I'm moving in it, or I think I'm fixed and the world is changing. So I'm trying to find one thing that's moving and one thing that isn't moving.

[57:00]

I'm always trying to grope for, like, something fixed and something else moving. When he's saying they're both... Everything's moving and with everything else. Yes, there's no fixed... There's no fixed center. So it keeps just pushing us the way we normally think of it. If you think you have mind, then remember it's time. If you think you have time, then remember it's mind, you know, or something like that. But it's because it's so fun to dance with the statue. Perception of movement depends on something moving in relationship with something else. So either thing you can think of is fixed. But you have to think of it as fixed in order to perceive motion. Well, you don't have to. But you can't perceive motion otherwise. Unless you have a fixed... Unless something is moving in relation to something else. Yes, but... Can't both things be moving? That's quantum mechanics, that's calculus. Well, no, both things can be moving, but if you're perceiving change and motion, it's one thing moving in relationship to something else.

[58:07]

Yes. And it could be either way, you can switch back and forth. And I interject that I struggle with time as a thing. And I would say that something moving in time is... So I'm watching the ball go across, right? And here's the ball flying. And I see it going from A to B over three seconds. But the only time I see it ever is now. The only time... You couldn't get me to prove to you that it started on the right. From any of the events other than maybe if someone... When you talk about motion... Then you have to talk about that relationship. But arising of Self and being, that's a different thing. That might be different, yeah. That's what we're trying. I think he's trying to establish that motion is experienced, or he's not saying anything about motion, but it's not about a permanent Self experiencing a constant or some kind of motion. It's just that moment. And I want to interject that this is how miracles... When he says, Gavya, when he says, the picture cake, right?

[59:11]

He says it's always a moment of creating the picture cake. Every moment is creating picture cake, or, you know, rice cake. And it's the same kind of thing. Whether it's a picture of cake, or a real cake, whether it's a concept or not, it's just this moment, looking at whatever it is. And he says in Kabyo, if you look at the picture of a rice cake, there's a chance you'll get one to eat, because you'll see it when it's there. I thought that was clever, but even so, it's hard to conceptualize. But getting back to, theoretically, movement, because something is still, you have a way of seeing movement, right? Because of the contrast. Right. If everything is moving, you don't necessarily see the movement because you don't know, you don't have anything to compare it with.

[60:22]

And that comes out in zazen, when as soon as you start comparing the feeling you have with a different feeling, you have pain. Oh, right. You have to create the something which is still first in order to perceive change. And so we create like and dislike, right? So like and dislike, we fix them. I like pleasure, and so anything that doesn't add to that pleasure is an intrusion. But when you don't have any idea that there's an opposite, to what's happening, then you don't have a problem. I mean, you may have a problem, but it's not the same problem you have when you're comparing it to something that you like. So when you see flow, like I was just watching your hands move, which is like the basketball, if we're saying that we only see one instant,

[61:36]

then it's something else that's... He talks about discrete moments of time. And I don't relate to that. Because as your hand moves, I feel like I see the movement. And it's not relative to something else. I see a flow. I see a becoming. You see a flow, but in that flow are increments of time. Because the hand is here, that's the being-time of the hand being here. This is the being-time of the hand being here. This is the being-time of the hand being here. And these moments are moving. You're different each moment too. He's different each moment that it's moving. Well yes, your eyes are also moving. And so is your thought. But I don't know why... But it's increments. It's all increments. But I don't know why that makes the calling it an increment feels abstract.

[62:44]

It feels like an idea. Well, take a sparkler. It's standing still, right? Yeah. And then you do this, and it makes a circle. It looks like a circle. It looks like a circular form, but it's not. It's just increments. And so we have one o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock. That's a seriatim time of discrete moments. And then we can get it down even further, further, further, further. So if we are only in the moment, only in one instantaneous moment, and I Right now, my hand is here, so we're in this moment. It's memory that creates that relation to the rest. It's as if we don't doubt it, though.

[63:49]

You still have an idea that you're viewing that against the background of his face. So, time actually doesn't go anywhere. Right. What happens to the one o'clock? If they were things, we'd have this huge warehouse full of numbers. So that's why there's no now. It's now, it's already in the past. It's really hard, that's the diamond sutra. Past time, future time, and present time cannot be masked. With what time will you eat this rice cake? I think about, as a way of deconstructing this visually,

[64:59]

I feel like that was the project of early 20th century painting, cubism, where it showed the multidimensionality of things that were actually in motion in time. And that was an incredible philosophical and aesthetic breakthrough. And I hesitate to say this, You know, for anyone who's taken psychedelic drugs, I'm sure that we've all had the experience of waving your hand like that, and seeing the momentary iterations of your hand in each position, each one leaving a little bit of memory trace before disappearing. And I think in one way or another, that's what the cubists are seeing, and that's a view, and that's what Dogen is talking about. It's another way of looking into reality.

[66:01]

Dogen, as Niemann says, Niemann, that Dogen is trying to not create a metaphysical, a philosophical, or some kind of description, but to actually get beyond the words into the, and experience what he's talking about. Just on that point, I noticed that there were, in the references, the footnotes, there were a lot of descriptions, he was referencing these various characters who had experienced a sudden, abrupt moment of enlightenment. and repeatedly he keeps alluding to those pieces. Yes, the various masters he's talking about.

[67:09]

So what's the connection with that and time being? Oh well, you know he's talking about them as time being also. It's like he's tagging everything that comes up. This is it, this [...] is it. It's a kind of Not leaving anything out. I think it just needs a lot of study. And some history. And going back to your experience, like for exozen after this, we should try to, in the next period of exozen, we should try to realize what we just talked about. Yeah, yes, yes. And we can talk about it again tomorrow. How much time do we have left?

[68:14]

I find it difficult that it's only the masters who understand this. Only the masters? So we are supposed to end at 5 o'clock. We are? Guess what? Just because it's 5 o'clock doesn't mean we have to stop. That's true. And often there is a change in the lecture. I mean, it takes its time. We had a pretty good dive, I thought. We had a pretty good dive and we kind of changed I think so. I think, yeah, I think that's right.

[69:14]

Can we just read that last paragraph? Gary's got a question too. Since we've given beings a continuum, I just think that's the paragraph. I was looking at... We could all read it. We might all read it together. Well, I was thinking, you know, for service, we could just do this. Just read it. As a text. As a... That's interesting. Yeah. Okay. By evening service? Evening? Like tonight? Like evening service? Or tomorrow? Well, you know, we're not reading too much. Like a morning service could just be just this. Okay. And just read it. Has anybody argued that he's really trying to eliminate time in a conventional way?

[70:21]

He acknowledges time in a conventional way, but he doesn't say that's not time. He says, as a matter of fact, time in a conventional way is time, because there's nothing that's not time. Time is buddha nature. I think time is another way of seeing buddha nature. It's time. Even though time is not necessarily buddha nature, but buddha nature is time. Because how can anything be left out? They're all delusions of time. And he also says that He presents several delusionary understandings that that's also time. And even though you think, you know, you argue about it and you come out with, you know, eliminating time, that's also time.

[71:25]

So you can't escape. You cannot escape time. But you can escape time by being time, completely. The only way you can escape time is by being time completely. And I think that's what he's saying. And the only way you can escape the difficulty that you have in Zazen is being totally one with the thing that's your problem. Because if you try to separate yourself, that's when suffering starts. So you're being that pain, you're being that time? Yeah, you're one with whatever it is. If it's happiness, it's one with happiness. If it's, you know, whatever, you're totally one with it, because there's no opposite. Then it's non-duality.

[72:27]

Those last two paragraphs? We should continue while we're... We're high? No, I mean, we should quit while we're winning. Quit while we're completely confused? No, but what we were talking about, I just think those last paragraphs... What are the last paragraphs? Since we human beings are continually arranging bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion a whole universe, we must take care to look upon this welter of living beings and physical objects as some kind things. Things do not go about hindering each other's existence any more than moments of the time get in each other's way. As a consequence, the intention to train arises at the same time in different beings.

[73:42]

And this same intention may also arise at different times. And the same applies to training and practice, as well as to realizing the way. In a similar manner, we are continually arranging bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion them into what we call a self, which we treat as myself. This is the same principle Same as the principle. This is the same as the principle of we ourselves are just for time. Because of this very principle of the way things are, the earth in its entirety has myriad forms and hundreds of things sprouting up, each sprout and each form being a whole earth, a point which you should incorporate into your study of the way. For the recognition of the coming and going of things in this manner first step in training and practice, when you reach such a fertile field of seeing the way things really are, then the earth in its entirety will be one whole sprouting, one whole form.

[74:52]

It will be comprised of forms that you recognize and forms that you do not. Sproutings that you recognize and sproutings that you do not. It is the same as the times we refer to in From Time to Time. which contain all forms of existence and all worlds. So take a moment to look around and consider whether there is any form of being, that is, any world that does or does not find expression at this very moment of time.

[75:21]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ