I come to taste the truth of the Tartar's word. The subject of our class tonight is a case from the Book of Serenity, 100 Zen Koans.

[01:22]

It's collected by Master Wansong in the Song Dynasty in China. There are many of these collections of koans and this is one that's particularly, this particular collection of koans is has been a favorite study of the Soto school, along with the Blue Cliff Record of the Mumonkan, and was recently, I say recently, about 10 or 15 years ago, translated by Thomas Cleary. And I assume everyone has either a Xerox or a copy of the book. And if you don't have either one, you can look on with somebody else. We've studied these before, and this was our subject of study last practice period. So I don't want to get too much into explaining the text, how the text came about, but Master Wansong

[02:32]

makes a commentary on the case and then he first of all there's an introduction to the case and then there's the case which is a dialogue usually between two ancestors and then The commentator gives some examples, maybe two or three examples. Usually the examples are some other case or some other story, a story in Chinese history or a story of another dialogue or trialogue. And these examples give us some hint about what the case is talking about.

[03:46]

So there's the introduction, which gives us some view of what the case is about. And then the examples coming from the other side give us some view. So he talks a lot around the case, but he never gives it away. It's up to you to understand. And then, Master Tian Tong has a verse, and Master Tian Tong was, comes in time actually before Wansong. Master Tian Tong is Hongzi, If you've been coming to my lectures on Saturday, I've been talking about Master Hong Zi, and the verse is the verse of Master Hong Zi.

[04:50]

I know this sounds complicated. And then the verse relates to the case, and Master Wansong talks about each line of the verse afterward. He has some comment on each line of the verse in order to, not explain it, but give you some idea about it. And then there are the additional sayings on the case, and then there are additional sayings on the verse. So this will all come out in our study. So we'll study this together. And it's very difficult because it presupposes that you know something about Chinese literary history, maybe, and about Zen history, and about certain characters, and a way of speaking which is colloquial Chinese of many ages ago.

[06:02]

and interpretation and translation. So, to actually get into this and get through it, you have to have some intuition and soft mind, which doesn't get hung up on the words. Very good practice, actually, for not getting hung up on the words. When you hear a Zen lecture, or read Zen literature, or listen to your teacher, don't get hung up on the words. Otherwise, you get stuck right there. So, tonight's case is case number 20 on page 86. And Quan Lam and I went over this first part of the case yesterday and changed it a little bit because he had some ideas about the Chinese and their mode of expression, which made a lot of sense.

[07:36]

And so I want to, I'll read the introduction and then I'll talk about that a little bit because the way he expressed it was a little bit different and very nice actually. So this is called Di Zong's Nearness and nearness is one way of expressing, but intimacy actually is more accurate. Dizong's intimacy, what is most intimate? Not as what's nearest, but what's most intimate, what's closest, very close to you. It's more than just nearness. Dizong doesn't seem to be a well-known teacher, but he does appear in this case, and he may appear somewhere else. He's not terribly famous.

[08:39]

So in Wansong's introduction, he says, the profound talk entering into noumenon, or you could say into what is deep. The actual expression is into the deep. It clearly has, it decides three and weeds out four. But the meaning is like, it's like teasing and grabbing. Like, teasing three and grabbing four. It's playfulness. This whole, case has a kind of playful feeling about it. It's like profound talk, but it's really casual talk.

[09:49]

It's very casual talk, but this casual talk is very deep and profound. Like, you know, we say that idle chatter is one of the hindrance to enlightenment or to the mind, true mind. So we try to not promote idle chatter. But the idle chatter of two Zen adepts is very deep and profound. And sometimes their deep and profound way of speaking sounds like idle chatter. So the profound talk entering into the deep is like teasing three and grabbing four.

[11:01]

The Great Way to Chang'an. Chang'an is the capital, was the capital of China at that time. It means eternal peace. Within the capital, the roads go across and up and down. And it's like the roads within the capital, not the roads to the capital, but the roads within the capital go seven ways across and eight ways up and down. Suddenly, if you suddenly open your mouth and not explain, but say it. Suddenly to open the mouth and express fully and step on it.

[12:21]

It's like you put your foot down and step on it. And you know, it's like a sudden stop. It's like, boom. So suddenly to express it and put your foot down. Then you can hang up your bowl and put your bag up and break your walking stick and relax. But Who is the person that can do this? So, do you get this? Do you have any question about this introduction? Okay, well then, he gives us an example.

[13:27]

This is the case. Oh, I wrote this out. our translation. I'll just go over it once more. The profound talk entering into the deep is like teasing three and grabbing four. It's like this and that. It's like the broad boulevards of Chang'an, the capital, which go seven ways up and, which go up, go seven up and eight down. That means various ways. Suddenly you open your mouth and speak through. That speak through is the expression. Pick up your foot and step right on it. Then you hang your bowl and break your staff.

[14:31]

But tell me, who could this person be? Then he gives us an example. Dizan asked Fayan, or Fayen, where are you going? Actually, it's like, it could be, where have you been? But it seems to be, where are you going? Or actually, it's, where have you been? It depends on the rest of the text, what comes after it, whether it's where you're going or where you've been. And Fa Yin said, meandering, just wandering around. Here it says, around on pilgrimage. They say meandering, no special place. But it has the feeling, probably has the feeling of pilgrimage. And Di Zong said, What is the purpose of that?

[15:33]

Or what happened on your travels? Or what will happen? So, but it's what happened? If I answer, I don't know. Don't know. Dizang said, this is most intimate. Not knowing is most intimate. And then there's another line which has been left out. And the other line is, Fa Yan had Satori. Why is Satori? We don't know.

[17:00]

Not knowing. The story doesn't have any importance if you have it on the story. It's the effectiveness of the teaching that makes this an important exchange. Yes, that's right. Fayan, or Fayan, was one of the famous Zen teachers. And there's a school named, that descends from him. One of the five schools, the Fayan school, Hogen in Japanese. So, this is a very simple story. And it just seems to be, you know, a casual talk. Where are you going? Oh, I've just been wandering around. Just wandering.

[18:04]

Well, what's the purpose of that? I don't know. Not knowing is most intimate. So casual talk suddenly becomes most profound talk and wakes somebody up. So here's the commentary by Master Wansilong. Yang Wuwei, that could be a pun. Wuwei means not doing anything, non-doing. Yang Wuwei, layman Yang Wuwei, asked Master Furong, who is Fuyo Dokai, How long has it been since we last met? Fu Rong said, seven years.

[19:08]

Mr. Yang said, have you been studying the way? Engrossed in meditation? Fu Rong said, I don't play that fife and drum. Mr. Yang said, then you wander for nothing over mountains and rivers, incapable of anything." Fulrock said, well, we haven't been apart for long. Even though we haven't been apart for long, you sure can reflect on high. Mr. Young laughed aloud. So This, he says here, Fu Rong says, I don't play that fife and drum, you know.

[20:15]

Yang Wuwei, you know, has got this idea, you know, about what Furong should be doing, about what you should be doing that is practice. He has this funny idea. Are you meditating? Have you been doing all these practices? I'm going to play that fife and drum. What would you play? Well, of course, I've been sitting with Azen a lot. So, I don't play that pipe and drum. It sounds very much like when Sagan went to the Sixth Patriarch, visited the Sixth Patriarch, Ueno.

[21:23]

And he said, the Patriarch asked him what he'd been doing. And what stages of practice have you been engaged in? And I say again, well, I have to tell you that I haven't even been fooling around with the Four Noble Truths. This kind of statement, in that case, comes from the question, what stages of practice have you been engaging in? And of course, the Zen school, we don't engage in stages of practice. And the sixth ancestor was trying to probe his mind a little bit, you know. In those days, especially people were very much engaged in stages of practice.

[22:25]

You start from delusion, and work your way up to enlightenment through various stages. And the Sixth Ancestors School was the school of sudden enlightenment. No stages. Either you get it or you don't. And when you get it, you understand in a total way. You see everything at once. So, Sagan is saying, I don't even fool with the Four Noble Truths. So this is a little bit like that, you know. I don't play that fife and drum. I don't, you know, you can't pin me down to some kind of practice and think that that's what I should be doing. Yeah, oh, you were scratching your nose? Yeah. So what have you been doing for the past seven years?

[23:27]

Have you been studying the way, engrossed in meditation, doing all these things? I don't play that fife and drum. So this is a kind of example that points up to the case. And then Nan Chuan said, the way is not in knowing or in not knowing. Knowing is false consciousness. Not knowing is indifference. There are various ways to say those two words, but we'll just accept it. Now, when people hear it said that not knowing is most intimate, here it says nearest, we just say most intimate, and this is where Fa Yan was enlightened, they immediately go over to just not knowing. So you think you're beginning to understand this, and as soon as you begin to understand a little bit, then you say, boom.

[24:40]

Now when people hear it said that not knowing is nearest, and that this is where Fa Yan was enlightened, they immediately go over to just not knowing, not understanding. Just this is it. They hardly realize that a phrase of the ancients covers everything or everywhere. One phrase covers everywhere. That's important. Like the sky supports everywhere. Like the earth. If not knowing is nearest, then what about Hazaz saying the one word Knowing is the gate of myriad wonders. If he's saying not knowing is most intimate, then what about this guy saying knowing is the gate of wonders?

[25:45]

How do those two tally? Just affirm totally when affirming, but don't settle down in affirmation. Deny totally when denying, but don't settle down in denial. Passing through all the five ranks of Tozan, absolute and relative, how could you die under a phrase? In other words, how could you settle in one's place? But this enlightenment of Fayan's too just spontaneously creates a pattern. Master Da Yin of Boshan said, he is still making a fortune out of a disaster. Right? You get that? He's still making a fortune out of a disaster. In other words, I don't know.

[26:47]

That's a disaster, right? But he's making a fortune out of it. He's still making a fortune out of a disaster. He's making the most out of the least. In Di Zong's method of guiding people, the hook is in an unsuspected place. Suddenly he gives a yank and Fa Yan has a powerful insight. After all, it was right to begin with. It has all along been there. That's more accurate. All along, it's all along been there. Old man Sijiao, Sijiu said, in walking, in sitting, just hold to the moment before thought arises.

[27:58]

Look into it and you'll see not seeing. And then put it to one side. When you direct your effort like this, rest does not interfere with meditation study. Meditation study does not interfere with rest. When he says, look into it and you'll see not seeing, it means like if you try to sneak a look, you won't see it. In other words, if you peek, you know, you won't see it. It'll disappear. You understand? When you're doing something, you have to be completely one with it. If you try to see, to peek, you know, am I doing okay? Is it okay? It's gone. Kathy?

[29:01]

You can't try and catch anything. Yeah. No. Hold to the thought. Hold to the moment. Well, In Zazen, you know, we always say, I have so many thoughts that are always coming up, you know, all the time. And you should try to catch the thought or be like a mouse, I mean a cat waiting for a mouse to come out of the hole. When you sit, you should sit like a cat waiting for the mouse. Just, you know, sitting there and watching the hole.

[30:03]

And as soon as the mouse comes out, got the mouse. Which means that see if you can catch the moment when a thought arises. Is that what you look into, or the moment before the thought arises? No. Just be there, without a thought. Be there. It's not like not thinking. I mean, it's not like without... You think... There's always a thought of something. There's no danger of not thinking. Yeah, you don't have to worry about that. But thinking the thought of watching the whole is also a thought, right? There's no, you know, so there's always a thought of something, but not to be, to realize the no thought within the thought.

[31:16]

And within the no thought to realize the thought. But to wait, to have that much attention that you wait for a random thought to appear. Not that there's, you know, and you eat the thought. It's not that there's something wrong with that thought arising. It's just that when you have that kind of attention, then whole body and mind is doing one thing. This is called thinking not thinking. So it doesn't matter whether the thought arises or not. What matters is how your attention is on total activity. The not knowing, I don't know, not knowing is most intimate.

[32:36]

Yes. The not knowing seems to be a certainty. Yes, this not knowing is, it's like, there are many cases about not knowing. Not knowing is a very famous, well-known statement in Zen. Bodhidharma is no. Bodhi's dharma is not knowing, and Joshu's, I don't know. And does the dog have the Buddha nature? No. No is like knowing, right? No, I know that it doesn't. But Bodhi dharma is, answer to the emperor. Who are you?

[33:37]

Don't know. This is a very famous statement already. Not knowing is the highest, but is Bodhidharma's not knowing the same as the emperor's not knowing? In other words, one not knowing, ordinary not knowing, means that you don't know something. This not knowing goes beyond knowing and not knowing. Otherwise, we wouldn't be studying the case. If it was just something that somebody didn't know, we wouldn't be studying the case. So do we apply that? Yes, we apply that. Yeah, so it's like when we have things out there we don't know, most often we either try to find out or we try to conjecture or we kind of make something up about it.

[34:44]

Right. Yeah, that's right. So there's the certainty in not knowing. You just don't know. Yeah, well there are certain things that you don't know. That's right. This don't know. means not knowing anything. Is it fair to say that the fan goes from immediately going over to not knowing when he says, I don't know, and then the satori, and then we can infer that Not knowing is a wholly different context, yeah. Well, he says not knowing is the most intimate. Then he has Satori. Right. But then Pheons, after Satori, presumably the I don't know would have not the coloration of immediately going over.

[35:55]

Going over? Or we can talk about it later. What do you mean by going over? Well, it's in the commentary. It's in the last paragraph on page 86. Now when people hear it said that not knowing his nearest or enemy, and that this is where Phaon was enlightened, they immediately go over to just not knowing. Well, it seems to me that Phaon was just going over to not knowing in his answer here. Well, people say just not knowing in the ordinary sense. Right?

[36:57]

People say, oh, it just means not knowing in the ordinary sense. This is not knowing in the transcendental sense. And then he says, well, when people hear this, they just say, oh, not knowing. They try to imitate it. Yeah, or they try to... See, they... I'll read that. Nong Chuan says, the way is not in knowing. or in not knowing. You don't find the way in knowing and you don't find the way in not knowing. Where do you find the way? Knowing is false consciousness. Knowing is always partial. And knowing is Knowing here means, in false consciousness means knowing through consciousness.

[38:05]

Knowing the way that we ordinarily know. As an idea. Knowing as an idea. And not knowing is just indifference, you know. So it's not one of those two. Knowing is illusion. Yeah, that's right. It can be, that's right. Another way is knowing is illusion, illusory. Now, when people hear it said that not knowing is most intimate and that this is where Fa Yan was enlightened, they immediately go over to just not knowing. You know, in other words, I don't know anything. It's not that not knowing. Not understanding.

[39:06]

And this is just it, you know. Not knowing, not understanding. I don't have to know anything or understand anything. And that's it. Yes? When I look at it, it seems to me that what's being said is that there's no difference between knowing and not knowing. And because there's been this precedent set where people say just not knowing, that's too easy. I mean, people just have sort of a need by saying that they don't know. And that's the trap. And so, it seems to me that that's a warning. Because he said it, then we think that we know it, by saying that we don't know. That's right. That's true. David? It's possible to be the reference to Joseph's thinking of not thinking. Think not thinking. Yeah, well, think not thinking. is the same, is the koan of Zazen, which is a little different because this is, you could say this is no not knowing.

[40:14]

Isn't this before knowing? Yeah, but we're not talking about chronology. Oh, it's not a reference to Dogen. But it's like that. Yeah. It's similar. It's not... This is before Dogen. Yeah, but that's... It's in the same vein. as thinking, not thinking. Similar vein as thinking, not thinking. The similarity I see between us two is that I think of thinking and not thinking as opposites. And non-thinking is outside the thinking or stopping thought. In the same way for the knowing and not knowing, those are opposites.

[41:18]

And the intimacy, is outside of that duality. Yeah, that's right. The intimacy, right, transcends the duality. And non-thinking transcends the duality of the other one. Yes? Is it right to say that the case is You're not going to know or not know the objects outside you. Or if you do, you're in trouble. But instead, go towards something like a state of mind. That's the whole point. A particular state of mind to hold. Well, you have to be careful because it's not a particular state of mind. But it's going beyond consciousness.

[42:21]

Well, why isn't that a particular state of mind? Well, because there's no particular state of mind that is the particular... that is the... that is it. So, if it were... If that process is itself Well, not being attached to any particular state of mind is a correct state of mind. Right. In the part where he says, in walking, in sitting, just hold for a moment before thought arises, look into it and you'll see not seeing, then put it to one side. Put it to one side. Put it to one side. Now, when in sitting he starts to talk about zazen, it seems to me that this constant, constantly being present, not taking a break to check what's going on,

[43:47]

Well, when you said, if you try to take a peek. Not peeking, yeah. Not peeking, yeah, not peeking. So, in other words. Peeking means objectifying. Right. So, in other words, as whatever's happening in Satsang, you know, it could be breath going in and out, or anything else, even it could be looking at the whole, or it could be looking at the mouse, but if there's no separation, no looking, then you're fine, or then you've got it. Well, yes, that means that there's no duality. Right. So whatever happens to be going on, regardless, regardless, and it could be many, many kinds of stuff, it can still be done non-dualistically.

[44:51]

Yes. Of course. Right. So, and the problem is never to sort of grasp that or... Well, this is, you know, the tricky territory in the explanation. You know, because as soon as you start to talk in this area, then you start falling into duality because... Well, that could be the grasping right there to say, is it this? Right. As soon as you say it's this, it's not that. Whatever you say, it's not. Right. That's why we always use the negative. Not. The negative is always used rather than... As soon as you affirm the positive, then you want to grasp it as something to hang on to. That's why we always use the negative. But when he... says, after making this mistake, you'll see not seeing, it's some kind of a mistake, then put it to one side.

[45:56]

Is he saying... Don't hang on to it. Right. In other words, resume this holding to the moment before thought arises. See, yeah, then put it aside means don't get attached to that. Don't get attached to some particular state of mind or some particular understanding. We get into a kind of samadhi, and then we think, this is wonderful, this is it, and then we want to preserve that. But you can't do it. Samadhi has to be established on each moment with each situation. You know, your life has to be established on each moment with each situation. And you can't hang on to the last moment. You know, you can't keep laughing at the same joke, right? You have to... Really?

[47:02]

What have you been doing here for all these years? Some people can. OK, where does that line appear? Oh, yeah, just this is it. OK. That's. part of uh... now when people hear it said that not knowing is nearest or is most intimate and that this is where fayan was enlightened they immediately go over to just not knowing not understanding and this is it just this is it and all those things are the right things to say but they're the wrong things to say unless

[48:10]

They come from your realization. You can't just parrot. Yes? It reminds me of that story of a student who had his finger cut off. Yes. Yeah, there are a lot of stories like this. It seems to me like the way this makes the most sense to me has to do with curiosity. And that if we know things, then we're not any more curious about them. And if we don't know things, then we're still not any more curious about things. And that it seems to be the most interesting to stay curious like that cat. What's going to happen now? Does that make sense? Well, no. What is knowing here?

[49:16]

What is there to be known here? What are we talking about when we talk about knowing and not knowing? Yeah. So how do we do something we can't do? Well, we can't do something we can't do. So how do we muddle along? Oh, I see. But in this case, it can be done because it's already done.

[50:27]

We just don't know it. So, we just don't know what we know. So knowing, the more we know, the less we know it. This is the thing. See, there's knowing in the mind, which is, knowledge is partiality. The knowing of our thinking mind, The knowledge of our thinking mind is always partial. It's never complete. This is why thinking mind is a hindrance to knowing. Knowing here means knowing our true nature, right? Knowing means knowing who we really are. Knowing the intimacy of

[51:29]

not only our self, but our small self, but our big self. When we intimately know, then we know beyond knowledge. So this knowing is called, the wisdom of knowing is called prajna, prajna, right? Prajna is not knowledge. in the usual sense. It's the intuitive knowing of our entire self which is blocked by our knowledge because our knowledge being partial is a cover. So the baby has it.

[52:37]

The baby has it because the baby has not yet developed discriminating mind. It grabs for anything, it eats anything. It's all the same. Everything's the same for the baby. Because the baby has not developed discriminating mind. And as we grow up, we develop more and more discriminating mind. and self-protection and so forth. But this discriminating mind covers our undivided mind, our whole mind, pure mind. Purity in Buddhism means non-dual. And it's not the opposite of dirty. It just means whole and non-dual. So baby is very pure, you know. We always have that feeling around baby and smell good, you know.

[53:41]

They smell non-dual. So this is what it's talking about, knowing, knowing yourself. knowing your true self. So we know a lot about ourself. That's different. We know a lot about the world. We have lots of information. This is one of the problems with our society now, because we're so hung up on information. We think we have to know so much, and the more we know, there's infinitely more bits to know. You know? And there's no end to this knowing. But it's not knowing ourself. It's just a deviation away from ourself. Because it occupies the mind. And the mind is so occupied that spirit becomes blocked. Yes?

[54:45]

I know you wanted to say something. But there's a sense in which the baby doesn't know. What? Say that again? There's another sense in which the baby doesn't know. Yes. That's right. Can you say something about that? Yeah. What it is it's missing? Yes. So, uh, baby, although the baby has this, the baby is still a baby. So, uh, the mature person has to go all the way around and come back, but not, it's not a coming back because you can't, you don't come back to any place or maybe you do, but The baby has to grow up and understand the dualistic world. We all have to go through the door of duality and think dualistically. And then learn how to think non-dualistically.

[55:49]

Because we can never become a baby. So the baby becomes mature. Right? But the maturity is in being able to understand the duality and the non-duality. That's the maturity. But most people only get to the duality part. And they don't get beyond it. This is the problem that we have. So we say enlightenment is knowing the non-duality within duality without giving up duality. you understand the non-duality of duality and the duality of non-duality. Yes? Is that the knowing and not knowing simultaneously? Knowing and not knowing simultaneously. Yeah. It seems to me that you're talking a bit about having a sense of no self, of no separate self.

[56:53]

in a relative way we are separate, but in a larger way that that's an illusion and seeing the connectedness between not only people but things. Yeah, so it's without giving up, you know, dropping the self doesn't mean to get rid of your body. It means within this self to realize the no-self of this self. And without doing away with it. If you do away with it, then you're back into duality, right? It's only non-dual when both things exist. It's only non-dual when there's duality. It's the duality that's non-dual. So if you get rid of one side, it's still duality. That's the koan. That's our koan, our basic koan.

[57:55]

The koan is always between the two and the one. What's the oneness of the two and the twoness of the one? And so if we try to get rid of the bad part in order to just have the good part, it doesn't work. Each one of us is half good and half bad. And if you don't realize that, you have a problem. What's that problem? What's the problem? The problem of not knowing yourself. Which self? Well, keep going. That's good. What's so? What's so? Keep asking that question.

[58:57]

What's so? Mary? I'm not sure I understood what you said about this, towards the middle of page 187 that says, in walking and sitting, just hold to the moment before thought arises. Look into it and you'll see not seeing. and then put it to one side. And it seemed like the, you know, see, not seeing, you know, reminded me of think, not thinking. Yeah, that's right, exactly. Okay, I thought you were saying something about, I don't know, so you're saying don't peek, or? Well, yeah, but that's literally what it, you know, you'll see, not seeing, actually, more literally is, if you try to take a peek, you won't see it. But see, I remember I don't know Chinese, so I don't know, but just reading what he says here in English, it sounded like it was saying, you know, hold to that moment before thought arises, you know, stay with that.

[60:06]

Right. And then, but look into that. I'll say something, you know, in walking and sitting, just hold to the moment before thought arises. Now Cleary interprets that as, look into it and you'll see not seeing. Okay, which sounds pretty good, you know, and you can make a case for that because it's very Zen. But literally, you know, it's more like if you try to, if you try to take a peek or look, sneak a look you won't see it. So sneak a look means, could mean, get out of the duality, I mean get out of the, to create a duality. To make an object of it.

[61:06]

Right, yes. In your original text, it's a little bit more descriptive than that. You see it, but you don't see it. Even though you do see it, but you really don't see it. I don't know if this is... It's probably not helpful, but... Don't say it! It brings to mind... Yeah. And Orpheus looking back at Eurydice. Just peeking. I have the same thought. I'm serious. I also thought about it the same time you were opening the refrigerator door.

[62:10]

Hang on or not. She was in Ghostbusters, you remember? I do think there's something there. Yes, that's right. I do too. There's something really archetypal about consciousness in that experience. Well, you know, I remember this story, this Hasidic story. The Baal Shem was this Jewish saint and there was, you know, legends about him and how he used to, in the middle of the night, you know, he'd have this strange chariot ride through the sky, you know, and this one man wanted to ride with him, you know, and see the wonders.

[63:20]

all these wonders, and he said, okay, I'll take you, but if you peek, you'll die. You have to look, I don't remember exactly what he had to do, but he had to close his eyes or something like that. He said, if you open your eyes, or something like that, you'll die. I can't remember the exact story, but it was something like that. Isn't part of the admonition not to be self-conscious? Not to be self-conscious. It seems to be going well, and all of a sudden you realize, I had no thoughts for a minute, and then you've got a thought, right? That's right. You've detached yourself from yourself. Yes, it's like that moment of self-consciousness which makes a division and creates subject and object again. It's the split between subject and object.

[64:21]

Relating to this section on it, it says, Just affirm totally when affirming, but don't settle down in affirmation. Deny totally when denying, but don't settle down in denial. Now, it seems to me that the idea of duality and non-duality existing simultaneously has something to do with this in the sense that when we're having a thought, like you said, We're always having a thought. We're having a thought. But if we're totally having a thought, it's non-dual. It's only when we're having a thought of a thought. Well, that's right. So there are three levels. We're talking about three levels of thinking. And one level of thinking is bare perception. Bare perception means without discussion, without, it's just, the eyes are open, and it's not my eyes, it's just their eyes are open and there is seeing, it's not I am seeing.

[65:35]

You don't need to put the I into any of it, anything you do, really, but it's a convenient way of collecting all the stuff, you know, and putting it in one place to say I. But seeing sees. There's just seeing. And without any discussion about it, there's just bare attention. And there may or may not be memory, but there's just bare attention and perception. And then the next level of consciousness is to name and classify and tell yourself what happened and what's happening and so forth. And then there's another level of consciousness which discusses all that and makes a story out of it and relates it to past, present and future and elaborates on it. So there are various levels of elaboration.

[66:38]

And the more elaboration, the further you get away from the actuality of what's happening. And so the event becomes a story, right? So a lot of the time we live in the story. We're not living in the moment. The story is the moment too, right? But it's about something else. It's about something. So all three are necessary. It's necessary to have all three. All three are the various levels, subtle levels of consciousness. But unless we allow ourself to have bare attention and experience the real experience rather than the experience we're telling ourself we're having, then we're not really living in the present.

[67:40]

with the present experience. Often we're just living in the story that we're telling ourselves. And the whole thing is made up. Our mind is making the whole thing up about what's happening and what we're doing. But moment by moment, as we see things, as things happen, The cat is sitting in front of the hole and the mouse pops out. I mean, moment by moment, the cat sees the mouse, but there's nothing else. There's nothing in between. That's right. So even though in sitting Zazen and in anything we do, we will constantly see mice. As long as, you know, just like a cat typically would be so totally aware, just totally engrossed in the mouse and not thinking about, you know, am I going to catch the mouse this time or am I not going to catch the mouse like I did last time?

[68:59]

That's right. Doesn't think about that. Right. Not knowing. That's, yeah, that's, you know, completely not knowing. Just, just there, you know, there for the, there for the mouse. So he, but even though he sees a mouse, it's non-dual. Even though there might be this seeing a mouse, there's not mouse, cat, bull. No story. It's all one thing. So back to just affirm totally when affirming, but don't settle down in affirmation, could be related perhaps to when one is affirming, you're affirming, and then the settling down comes with the storytelling and the weight of the pea soup.

[70:01]

And the main distinction, so that we know, I mean, at least we know, if we know when we're telling a story, at least there's some truth and clarity to it. This is a story. This is a story. And that there's some... Perhaps, I'm getting back to what Alan was saying about... Odysseus? Orpheus. Orpheus and... Anyway, the idea that there's that moment of just seeing It's lightning. And then once you realize that, there's a sense that, so then for me, I want to cling to that, or I want to analyze it, or I want to, you know, mess with it. It's a bittersweet moment, in a way. Well, that's right.

[71:04]

That's also like taking a peek, you know. It's like looking under the hood, you know, at the motor. You know, you want, like the source is what's actually motivating everything, right? But you can't peek at it. You can only be with it. I think that you can acknowledge that you're peaking. Yeah. You know, maybe acknowledge that that would be, that's what's happening at least. Yes. Jeff, you think? If in this latter part you're talking about moment, each moment has its own story, but in the introduction of the third line it says,

[72:12]

and say it, but words are always after the fact. So I'm kind of caught by, what do they mean by... This is the word that's not after the fact. This is the word and the action that is not after the fact. Ah. It's not about something else. It's like a little kid coming and stomping on a beetle. You know. It's not after the fact. There it is, you know. Smashed. Life and death. Yeah. Maybe what's so hard about this is that There's a way in which it's asking us to go outside of story.

[73:20]

And human beings throughout history have lived by story. We've passed on our lives and our beings through story and metaphor. And it seems like, you know, you have a book of stories in front of you there, right? Yeah, this is story and metaphor too. Right. So what does it take really to step outside of that? even though it's such a rich part of our conditioning and our understanding and our way of understanding life? Well, you don't have to step outside of it. But what it takes is to let go of your story. to get beyond your story.

[74:22]

Each one of us has our story, which is very interesting. But there is a person, there is someone beyond the story. There is something beyond the story. I can remember when I was about 15 or 16 or something like that, and I was walking across a parking lot or something, and I thought, there are all these events in my life, but it's not my life. There are these events that describe my life. But it's not my life. That's not my life. My life, it really doesn't have anything to do with that stuff. I remember that was a very deep feeling that I had, that there was some real me that wasn't part of all those events.

[75:35]

I mean, it was part of it, but independent, maybe, of all those events. that describe my life. And I think that's true of all of us. There's some you that's touched by something or maybe untouched, you know. Maybe, you know, we see that person when we're about to die or something, you know, or in the critical moments, we see that person. That comes up for us. And it's independent of our story. I don't even know what I'm going to ask.

[76:50]

It troubles me. And I really don't know what I'm going to ask. But it has something to do with bear attention, which I assume means that the ego is not tainting the situation. Yes, not interfering. Well, if that's so, then would it mean that it All of us in this room existed in that transcendental state. We would be in complete accord. We'd have to find out. But our egos wouldn't make things, our observations wouldn't be personal. We would be in accord in the sense that the purity of our vision and therefore there would be unanimous response. There wouldn't be anything to fight about or anything to disdain.

[77:57]

Although, when you sit in Zazen, when you really sit in Zazen without falling into discrimination, whatever comes up is just what's there. So you don't fight it, and you don't disdain it, and you don't push something away, and you don't grab onto something. So that's the state of non-ego. You experience it when you sit zazen. But certainly, and the idea is ridiculous even to think that this is inherent in this state. It doesn't in any way have anything to do passion, with anger, with all those marvelous and extraordinary and rich forms of energy that produce very personal art, for example?

[79:01]

Well, it's not so much that there's no that those things are not present is that the self is not the center. It's called not self-centered, right? So if the self is not the center, what is the center? What do you revolve around? So each one of us picks something to revolve around because we need to center ourself on something. And so we create a self to center ourself on. And that's called the ego. We create a story and cling to the story and identify with it. So our life centers around our self, and it's called self-ishness.

[80:07]

But when you let go of that, then your life, you just let go and see what happens, and you become Buddha-centric. you become centered around Buddha, which means this fearlessness. Because you let yourself go and trust in your life without having to create something. And then, Yeah, you don't have contention. It doesn't mean that you may get angry and you may have all the feelings that people have, but you don't reinforce those feelings through the ego. They don't get reinforced in a way that keeps creating a bigger ego.

[81:14]

Anger is an enormous ego creator. You know? Greed is an enormous ego creator. So, you have desire, but it's not called greed. You have feelings, but it's not called hate. Right? Even though it may, you know, you may not like something. So, yes, if we all let go of our egos, we get along a lot better. That's true, of course. and it's almost nine. So study this case some more and next time we'll go into Tian Tong's verse and the commentaries on Tian Tong's verse and the added sayings.

[82:12]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ