Sokushu said, Bokushu, no, Setso in his verse says, two shouts, three shouts. The knowing one knows well. The knowing one being Bokushu, meaning he knows how to retreat and he knows how to come forward. So this is how this is the flexibility of the teacher. When the monk shouts he says, �Okay, you've overwhelmed me,' you know, he backs off, he says, �Okay, you're in control here,' and then the monk shouts again, �Oh, you're not that much in control. What comes after all this?' When we were talking yesterday about the five blindnesses, the monk seems to have the third blindness, which is seeing from the absolute point of view but not seeing from the relative point of view.

[01:18]

So what comes after this is, where is your understanding in the realm where worms are glowing, and as is outlined in the introduction, in the realm of walking through mud and water, as they say, trudging through mud and water. Where is your understanding in that realm? The monk couldn't say anything. So he only had one eye, didn't have two eyes. One eye was blind, the other eye was open. Maybe, but maybe he was in the fourth blindness, which is being proud of your enlightenment, pride in your enlightenment.

[02:27]

taking pride in your enlightenment, stick to realization and making much of being enlightened. So it kind of sounds like somewhere between the third and the fourth one of blindness, whereas Bhogosho was totally blind. He could see everything. So two shouts, three shouts, the knowing one knows well, that's Bokosho. He knows how to retreat, he knows how to come forward. If going hell-bent, both are blind. Going hell-bent is kind of the literal translation, but also sitting on a tiger's head. sitting on the tiger's head and showing some restraint.

[03:31]

So this restraint is, he couldn't say anything, and so this is considered good. You know, he stopped the argument. The monk knew when to stop. He didn't just kind of keep going on and on, justifying himself and getting his feet deeper and deeper into the mud. Knowing when to stop is really important because many times when we are brought up short or make a mistake and we want to justify ourself, we dig ourself deeper and deeper into our hole and then we keep justifying ourself and it makes it harder and harder to see reality. So then he says, who is blind? fetch him, expose him to the world. So here this blindness again has got some ambiguity to it because hitting the monk and saying you empty-headed fool is ambiguous.

[04:45]

So hitting the monk can be either a rebuke or a compliment. So I think there's some in the head, and to say you empty-headed fool is a compliment. You know, when Master Rinzai was dying in his deathbed, and he had his disciples around him, and I can't remember the name of his disciple who was his successor, he said, who would have thought that I would be, that this empty-headed fool No, this empty-headed donkey would be my successor. But empty-headed donkey means an enlightened person. This is the way they talk, you know. Oh, this is an enlightened person. No, you don't talk like that about somebody. It's an empty-headed fool, it's stupid.

[05:49]

At the end of the Sandokai, be like a fool, like an idiot. It doesn't say, be like an enlightened person. Hide your light in the dust. Don't talk about people, and they're enlightened, you talk about how stupid they are. Which is a great compliment, and so does him. So anyway, you empty-headed fool. He sees his fault, but he also sees his ability. I think that's the important point. He recognizes the one-sidedness or the shortcoming in the monk, but he also recognizes the ability of the monk, and that creates the relationship. So on the surface it looks like he's only criticizing, but he's not just criticizing. You know, one of the, not a method, but the ways in China and Japan, the way teachers sometimes relate to their students is they say, get out of here, go away.

[07:10]

But they don't mean that you should go away. Suzuki Roshi used to say, I might say go away, but it doesn't mean you should go away. And I was talking to a woman who was a student of Ishu Miura, who was a teacher back in the 30s and 40s, not that long ago, but he was at the First Zen Institute in New York. and Ruth Fuller Sasaki translated Zen Dust, that wonderful book which none of you know about, few of you know about it, and he was a very aloof kind of teacher, a Rinzai teacher, and he hardly accepted anybody as a student, almost nobody,

[08:20]

But students would come to him, and they'd come to the door, knock on the door, and he'd say, what do you want? And they'd say, well, are you the Zen teacher? And he'd say, no. Bam! Closed the door. And then he said to her, how come they never come back? I don't understand what's going on here. Why don't they ever come back? Because in Japan, when they do that, you expect that's just the first meeting that's closing the door. In order to become a student of the teacher you have to ask at least three times. When you go to the monastery to get in you have to bring your traveling bag and put your head down on the steps for two or three days. It's not easy. Here it's very easy, too easy actually, it's okay, but it's just our way, easy to become a student.

[09:25]

But it's not so easy because they only want sincere students. Many of the people that went to Japan from here Like when Suzuki Roshi sent people to Japan and Maezumi Roshi sent some people to Japan to study, and people went on their own to study in the 60s, 50s, 60s. They were really given a hard time in Japan and the teachers wouldn't let them study with them unless they wanted to dedicate their lives to the practice, because they can't do that, get out. And if they did start to study with them for a little while and the teacher discovered that they weren't serious, meaning giving their whole lives to the practice, then they just get up. Anyway, so in some way these two cases are similar, but different.

[10:42]

In yesterday's case, Thangka asked the student, where were you coming from? He said, the bottom of the mountain, which is, in a sense, from the relative place, the mountain. And here it's from the absolute place. But both places were unacceptable because they were one-sided. basically, they didn't know the student wasn't adept enough to step outside of the rules, or he wasn't adept enough to know how to really express himself, but in both cases the teacher could see the sincerity of the student. One, they can see the sincerity of the student and they can also see the shortcomings in the student.

[11:53]

And you can see how, and in both of these cases are, deal with blindness. So both are blind, right? Who is blind? Who is blind? Who is not blind? So the case rests on What comes after the third and the fourth shout?

[13:07]

If you feel that you're enlightened, what will you do? How do you express that other than, how can you express that in the everyday activity? In other words, as it says here in the introduction, when one's activity is downward, even maggots, gnats, and all creatures become brilliantly illuminating and as independent as a 10,000 foot cliff. How do you see the brilliant illumination in everything around you? That's the real test. How do you work that out in your daily life? How do you practice that? How do you practice that shout? Do you have any questions?

[14:20]

And you know, it wasn't going all that well. And I just said, well, so this is how it is. And of course he didn't really talk to me, but I heard him say anyway, yes, this is how it is. But nothing changed. It didn't seem up or down. It was just very plain. But it was okay. That's good. I like that. What is it? This is it. You know, there's this koan. What is it? The answer is, this is it. I'll give you the answer. The answer is more difficult than the question. could answer itself as a koan. So I don't mind giving you the answer.

[15:42]

The answer and the question. The answer is in the question, the question is in the answer. What is it? This is it. That's the practice. Oh, this is it. What is it? What is it? This is it. But there were no luminous at that moment. Well, you have to get down on your hands and knees. The illumination, you let the worm illuminate your mind. Somebody way in the back, behind Ellen, to put their hand up. I can't see who it is. Okay. You have to really speak loud.

[16:46]

Oh yes. Dogen says, in his classical on Buddha nature, he says, If you cut an earthworm in two, which side has the buddha nature? Why then distinguish between up and down so definitely when they're really not separated? Well, in order to... They're not separate, but... Sometimes the emphasis is on one thing and sometimes the emphasis is on something else. So our life is not one-dimensional. So even though within darkness there is light and within light there's darkness, there's still darkness and light.

[18:00]

We attempt to move darkness in a deluded effort to achieve the light. Yes, you don't need to achieve anything. That's the deluded effort to achieve, yeah, you don't need to do that. Because all you have to do is stand still and everything is revealed. Is this then a matter of balance between the two? Yes. But the two is one. It's not two and it's not one. So everything is a matter of balance. what we refer to when we say the middle way?

[19:14]

Yeah, middle way means the two middle ways. One middle way is the middle way between asceticism and the realm of desire. That's kind of the middle way, but actually Mahayana middle way means not alive and not dead. Not empty, not full. In other words, there's a tendency to be one way or another. but there's no definite dark or definite light. Light and dark are just contrasts.

[20:15]

So yes, it's a balance. If you go into a dark room, after a while it becomes light, just because you're there. And then you open the door and it's all light, but that's just the contrast between because he'd been in the dark. So, dark and light are simply contrasts. We just call one thing light and the other thing dark, depending on where we are. And so is absolute and relative the same? It's all relative. They're contrasts. Everything exists as, well, it exists as contrast. That's why, you know, birth and death are contrasts.

[21:19]

Light and dark are contrasts. Yes and no are contrasts. We call them opposites. But they really are one thing, but sometimes we call that one thing dark, and sometimes we call that one thing light. You don't. That's the middle ground, where there's no rule. Everything, because nothing really exists by itself, everything has absolute value. as well as relative. This is like virtue and value, everything has absolute virtue, which means virtue is its own reason for being, without contrast to anything else.

[22:31]

Value is something's worth in contrast to something else, relative to something else. So we evaluate everything on the basis of its juxtaposition to everything else. But each thing has its own virtue, which means that it exists in its absolute sense. So if we know how to appreciate the absolute virtue of each thing, then that's the oneness of duality, and the duality of oneness. It sounds like absolute. It's absolutely relative, and relatively absolute, because to appreciate

[23:36]

the absolute value, the absolute virtue of everything in its relative state of value. So we appreciate flowers and trees and birds and even though they have, and they all have their absolute value, but they also have their relative, their absolute virtue, even though they have their relative value. So everything, we appreciate everything for what it is, imon, just this, just as it is, and it changes. So, without attachment we can appreciate everything, because we know that it's all changing. And what is it that's changing? Well, it's the absolute value, which is the fundamental thing, which you can't grasp, but we can recognize it through its manifestations as relative things.

[24:56]

Just relativity. Everything is one piece, which is just wiggling around, making forms. It's one big ball of worms. We're just worms, eating our way through the earth and leaving our trails behind. Earthworms. Glowing. So if we can simply appreciate each other as Buddha nature, we won't argue with each other so much. We appreciate each other as Buddha nature, and then that's our virtue, but we grade each other depending on our comparative value. This one's better than that one, this one I like, and this one's, you know.

[26:01]

You have to see everybody the same. That's enlightened, enlightened seeing is to see everybody is the same. And enlightened seeing is also to see everyone is different. Those are the two aspects. To see everyone's individuality and difference. But if you only see that, which is what most people do, then you don't see everyone's virtue. Because we think in terms of good and bad and right and wrong. That's comparative value. But if you see everyone's Buddha nature, then it's all the same. And you can appreciate everyone no matter what you think of them. You can't be picking and choosing. We pick and choose who we like, and even so, we don't like this one or that one, but nevertheless, we can appreciate the Buddha nature of that person, and therefore we can relate to that person as Buddha nature.

[27:22]

and that's the oneness of duality. In other words, to be able to relate to eat to the virtue of each thing, which is its essence. So in essence, everything has the same essence called Buddha nature. And then everything has its characteristics, which are annoying or enjoying. But you have to get beyond that, you know, get beyond the annoying and enjoying part to the fundamental. So they exist together, it's one thing, not two different things. It's two and yet one, not two, not one. We have to bring your own understanding to the koan, because there are commentators who would say that, who would leave it at criticism, but I think that's short-sighted because who cares?

[29:23]

Who cares if you're just criticizing him? What kind of story is that? Yeah, there's no value in the story. So, you think that all the koans in the Blueprint Record have that benevolent quality or appreciation? Well, you know, I can't say that all the koans do this or that, but I think that the basic attitude of all these stories is compassion, even though it looks sometimes brutal. It's all based on compassion. It's everybody's style. Well, sometimes people think we do. Yes.

[30:40]

Whoever we is. We're not around anymore. Well, sometimes people think that I'm brutal. And I probably am. In following the exchange between you and Reed, I was interested in trying, and this question I was struggling with before, which is how to locate this understanding of relative and absolute in experience, in sense, in my own understanding and body-mind. So the question is, how do we know that we know? And how do we know that we know correctly?

[31:47]

How do we trust the knowing? When you bring your understanding to the fore, how do you trust the knowing? And I guess one question I have is if we're all introduced that we have enough horizon to see enough to know any of this? Yes, you have to know what your truth is based on. When you know and have confidence in what your truth is based on, then all your responses come from that place. How do you know what it's based on? Well, you just trust yourself. At some point you trust your understanding, which doesn't mean you understand everything, but you trust the understanding that you have.

[32:50]

Is that a physical feeling, that trust? Yeah, it's a gut feeling. It's a gut feeling, but it's verified by your intellect. Because if you realize that all of these cases come down to compassionate action, the monk is not trying to destroy anybody, he's only trying to kill them. That means get them out of their deluded, get them to understand their delusion. As long as you realize it's all based on compassion and helping, then that's where you come from, in understanding it.

[34:00]

That's what helps you understand the koan, and it always works. Because, you know, what is it all about? compassionate action and helping. To what? To look at, to come to reality. To know what is, when you're being fooled and when you're not. But in that trust, you delineated...

[34:52]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ