You probably have enough trouble thinking of a question for tomorrow morning. So maybe I should just leave it at that. Do you have any questions about from last time? From anything we've... So I think I'll just start from the beginning of this section and read just the main core, up to where we ended last time.

[01:01]

When the Chan Master Ta Chi of Chang Shi was studying with the Chan Master Da Hui of Nanyue, after intimately receiving the mind seal, he always said in meditation, Once Nanyue went to Tachi and said, worthy one, what are you figuring to do, sitting there in meditation? And Changshi said, I'm figuring to make a Buddha. And at this point, Nanyue took up a tile and began to rub it on a stone. At length, Tachi asked Master, what are you doing? And Nanyue said, I'm polishing this to make a mirror. And Tachi said, how can you produce a mirror by polishing a tile? And Dachi said, then what is right? Nanyue replied, how can you make a Buddha by sitting in meditation? And Dachi said, then what is right? Thank you. And Nanyue replied, when a man is driving a cart, if the cart doesn't go, should he beat the cart or the ox?

[02:07]

And I kind of went through the first part of this up to if the words that the cart doesn't go do not mean simply that it does not go. So I'll read that section and then start where we left off. Now, when we say the cart doesn't go, what do we mean by the carts going or not going? For example, is the cart going analogous to water flowing or is it analogous to water not flowing? There is a sense in which we can say that flowing is waters not going. and that water's going is not its flowing. Therefore, when we investigate the words, the cart doesn't go, we should approach them both in terms of not going and in terms of not not going. And I got confused there. For it is a question of time, a question of time. The words, if the cart doesn't go, do not mean simply that it does not go. And we discussed that at length last time.

[03:09]

So this time, we're going to study, should he beat the cart or beat the ox? Does this mean there is a beating of the cart as well as a beating of the ox? Are beating the cart and beating the ox the same or not? In the world, there is no method of beating the cart. But though ordinary men have no such method, we know that on the path of the Buddha, there is a method of beating the cart. And this is the very eye of Buddhist study. Even though we study that there is a method of beating the cart, we should give concentrated effort to understanding in detail that this is not the same as beating the ox. And even though the method of beating the ox is common in the world, we should go on to study the beating of the ox on the path of the Buddha. It is this ox beating the water buffalo. No, is this ox beating the water buffalo, or ox beating the iron bull, or the clay ox? Is this beating with a whip with the entire world, with the entire mind?

[04:14]

Is this to beat by using the marrow? Should we beat with the fist? The fist should beat the fist, and the ox beat the ox. Tachi, not reply. Carl has a very nice footnote here that's full of humor. In number 17, he says, my barbarous ox-beating here tries to retain something of a double accusative in forms such as sui-gyo, sorry, sui-ko-gyo, or dai-gyu, reference to these various bovines. References to these various bovines appear frequently in Zen literature. And he says, we may take Dogen's use of them here simply as an evocation of the rich spiritual renaissance of his root text. Resonance.

[05:15]

What did you say? Resonance. Resonance. What did I say? Renaissance. Oh, I'm sorry. Resonance of his root text. So you could research each one of these bovines. They all have some kind of esoteric meaning, but we won't do that. My sentence on the marrow is tentative. But other people translated it as narrow also. Dogen is clearly playing with a colloquial verbal marker, ta, to beat. But I have not found the precedent for his ta hei zui and commentarial opinion on the interpretation of the predicate hei. He is widely divided, so people have different understanding. Menzahn, who was quite a... Menzahn... one of the early interpreters of the Shobo Genzo, likes the primary sense to scatter, and hence his to cause to gush forth.

[06:22]

And Kishizawa, who is a modern-day commentator on the Shobo Genzo, who died maybe in the 50s or 40s, was one of Suzuki Roshi's teachers, prefers the sense to put together. Anyway, I don't want to go through all that. I don't need to do that. But I thought it was interesting, you know, his barbarous ox-beating and references to the various bovines. So, should he beat the cart or beat the ox? So this beating, you know, or beat with the fist, you know, it's over and over talking about beating, you know, but this beating is like becoming one with. It has kind of a feeling of to be one with.

[07:26]

It's not really whipping or beating or, you know, it's just an emphatic way of saying to be completely one with. The fist should beat the fist. The ox should be the ox. In other words, the fist should become one with the fist. The ox should become one with the ox. You should become one with yourself. You know, I just want to back up a little bit, because it's not clear to me certainly the context that this is existing in, I'm not sure what we're talking about, what it means when the cart doesn't go. Can you say a little bit more about what it means when the cart doesn't go? To make the cart go. If you want to make the cart go, do you beat the horse or the ox or do you beat the cart? Yeah, but what does it mean that the cart doesn't go?

[08:29]

Well, that's why last time I said An alternative to if it doesn't go is if you want to make it go. So to say if it doesn't go presupposes that there's some problem. So what is making the car go in terms of sitting and driving? Well, that's what this is about. When a man is driving a cart, if the cart doesn't go, If you want the cart to go, do you beat the cart or do you beat the ox? Going means actualizing. Actualizing means to make real.

[09:30]

or it means to appear on a stage of reality. That's going. Going doesn't necessarily mean going someplace. When we talk about the Tao, the Tao means the path, right? But the Tao is a path, but the path doesn't go anywhere. Yes, the path goes somewhere, but the path doesn't go anywhere. So, that's the same thing as saying, does a cart go or doesn't go? Yes, it goes. No, it doesn't go. Right? It goes and it doesn't go. So, when we talk about path, it's not like going someplace. Although, you can't deny going somewhere as a function of the path. But where you go is not someplace else. So, if you want to drive the cart, means how do you actualize the cart?

[10:41]

How do you make it go? Even though it goes and doesn't go. That's a good question, thank you. Do you beat the cart or do you beat the ox? Do you say, I want to get enlightened? Or do you say, I want to practice? So he's saying, anywhere you hit, it's all the same, in the realm of practice and enlightenment. I mean, it's easy to say these things, and then you say, oh, OK, and then you forget Or it doesn't penetrate. So then you wonder, well, why don't you say something simple? It is simple. But it doesn't mean you understand it, just because you say it in a simple way.

[11:48]

So Dogen is trying, in the way he is presenting this material, is to bring you through, not the experience, but By going through this process, you internalize it, rather than just have it as an idea. The process of understanding what he's saying, of just letting what he's saying penetrate So, although, you know, it's... to just say, in other words, by studying the commentary, by going through the process of the commentary,

[13:12]

internalizes the meaning of the story. So, should he beat the cart or beat the ox? In other words, should you be one with the cart or should you be one with the ox? Should you completely... give yourself to practice or should you completely give yourself to trying to figure out enlightenment or realization? Does this mean there is a beating of the cart as well as a beating of the ox? Do you have to beat them both? Do you have to try to become Buddha as well as try to practice? Should you aim at Buddha or should you aim at practice? are beating the cart and beating the ox the same?

[14:24]

Well, that's what he says. But, are they? But, the ordinary man have no such method. We know that on the path of the Buddha there is a method, the beating of the cart. So, he's radicalizing the beating of the cart rather than, he's going to the other end of the pole and saying, beat the cart. We beat the cart. Because ordinary understanding is beating the horse or the ox. And even though the method of beating the ox is common in the world, we should go on to study the beating of the ox on the path of the Buddha. Is this ox beating the water buffalo?

[15:28]

So ox beating is, it takes us that whole, not just beating the water buffalo, but is it ox beating the water buffalo? Or ox beating the iron bull? Or ox beating the clay ox? So ox beating itself becomes a term, not just beating. It almost sounds like a technique, ox-beating. Yeah, ox-beating. Right, so what is ox-beating? What is it? What is it? Trying to get enlightened? Yeah, trying to get enlightened. Strong intention? What? Well, why not just beating? How can you ox beat the buffalo? So what is the meaning of the ox then? No, what is the meaning of the ox beating the buffalo?

[16:30]

You have to take it all. Yeah, you have to take it all. Analyze it. Analyze it, yeah. I guess what I meant was like, what is the traditional meaning of the ox? in the term Aux being... Aux means your nature. Buddha nature. Buddha. Is this beating with a whip? With the entire world? The entire mind? Is this to beat by using the marrow? Should we beat with the fist? The fist should beat the fist, and the ox beat the ox. So, beating here, both ox beating, beating, means be one with.

[17:38]

So, ox beating, you know, these various bovines. What do you think? Maybe a way to combine them is we could ox beat the cart. The what? The cart. Ox beat the cart. Yeah, you can ox beat the cart. Or ox beat the ox. Why beat? You could cart beat. It was the cart beat, the ox. You said before, why not just beat the buffalo, or why not just beat the cart? So is ox beating sort of, if you're not dealing with the ox at the moment, you're taking something else, some idea of food or some idea, and then applying it to the thing.

[18:41]

So really, it's just the ox beats the ox, and you beat whatever is there, which is really just itself beating itself. Yeah, it's just itself beating itself. And so later on, he talks about killing the Buddha, which means killing your idea, killing your concepts, in order to allow Buddha to appear. Killing the Buddha does not mean to kill somebody. To kill a Buddha, it means to let go of your concept of Buddha in order to let Buddha come to life. So, he's not saying that we shouldn't pay attention to the ox, but he's saying the ox and the cart are one piece. even though there's an ox, and even though there's a cart.

[19:44]

So the ox is the ox, and the cart is the cart. But the ox is the cart, and the cart is the ox. Practice is realization, and realization is practice. That's what he's simply saying. But he's saying it using this a way of bringing your mind deeper into this realization. So when the fist beats the fist, And the ox beats the ox, that means there's no gap between the ox and the cart.

[20:50]

There's no gap between realization and practice. When he's talking about ox beating the water buffalo, ox beating the iron bull, or the clay ox, are these three things different? Are they references to something? They're references to something that somebody said, that somebody used as a way of expressing themselves. They're kind of famous, but I don't want to go into that. And he doesn't go into it either. He says, let's just say that they're what they are. I'm just thinking, it's interesting. I just read today a new copy of the Turning Wheel, the Vipassana newspaper, and they have on non-dual practice, and they start off with the beginning saying, Dogen Zenji had this question, and he, you know, why if I'm already enlightened do I need to practice?

[21:55]

And then they go on in the paper, there's interviews with a few people that are teaching non-dual type meditation. One is a Hindu that's very popular now, I guess, Poonjaji. Anyway, in his interview he's saying, any practice sets up duality. somebody doing something. So it is sort of what you glean from reading the article is that you don't do any practice. So that you don't get... So you don't get stuck in this tool thinking of someone doing a practice. Yeah. And then the other interview is with a Tibetan teacher who teaches a khyent meditation which is non-dual. So I was thinking, it sounds like the only way, at a philosophical level, the only way you could, because in this phenomenal world where there is subject and object, is to just make practice realization. I mean, that's what we're going to make it non-dual, right?

[22:57]

It's just to say, sort of like, again, all these various stories about fanning yourself and nature, you have to enter into duality that is someone doing a practice. That's right. You practice non-duality in the realm of duality. You don't eliminate duality in order to have non-duality. Non-duality is the non-duality of duality. If you try to eliminate one or the other, you have duality. Exactly. If you fall to the side of the ... You don't have to do any practice, because anything that you do is ... then that's falling to the side of The duality of not doing any practice. That's right. That's close to the side of doing practice. That's right. So the duality has to be recognized as oneness. Or you have to reconcile the duality as oneness.

[24:03]

The oneness of duality and the duality of oneness. Otherwise, you just fall into one side or the other, which is a dualistic practice or dualistic understanding. This is called Hinayana practice. Hinayana doesn't belong to any special school of Buddhism. There's not a Hinayana school of Buddhism. Hinayana means dualistic practice of Buddhism. when people are practicing in a dualistic way, that's Hinayana practice. There are other ways to use the term, but that's basic. So, that's why, you know, it'd be very simple to just say, you know, eliminate one, that's really easy. That's why it's so difficult for Dogen to express it. That's why he has to express it in this way, And he's not explaining it, he's expressing it.

[25:03]

That's the difference. If he was just explaining it, then you'd just read it for a while and you'd catch it. But he's not explaining it, he's expressing himself. And he has to express himself in this way, and he expresses non-duality through dualistic terms. And he expresses duality through non-dualistic terms. And he then expresses it through after-numbers questions, And what? You actually end up asking all these rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions, right. Yeah, that's right. So then he says, and then I want to go on, Da Qi did not reply to all this ox-beating stuff. And as a matter of fact, he was kind of stunned. He said he was kind of stunned. So up on page 195, Dogen says, we should not miss the import of this, of this not replying.

[26:11]

In it, there is throwing out a tile to take in a jade. There is turning the head and reversing the face. By no means should we do violence to his silence. Carl says, he has some explanation for for throwing out a tile and taking in a jade. He says it's like a capping verse to a koan. In a koan study there are various verses that go with various questions or statements and in the course of the study you try to match one with the other. That may be literally have something to do with that, but I have a feeling it means that throwing out a tile to take in a jade means giving up your poor idea to take in a better one.

[27:13]

Giving up your poor understanding to take in a correct understanding. That's the way it looks like to me. What is taking a jade? Jade. Jade is precious stone. There is turning the head and reversing the face, which is like when you turn your head, your face also goes along with it, right? So it means turning from this side to viewing from that side. By no means should we do violence to his silence. In other words, give him a chance to assimilate what happened. I think it's very sweet. Because he couldn't answer, don't criticize him. Give him some space. Now?

[28:19]

Yeah. I have a real different take on that. Yeah. I think of like, you know, the Kirheis songs? I think he's saying that he had a completely different response. Yeah, that's right, it is. I didn't say it wasn't. Although, well, I was saying that he had his understanding, but it was not something that he could express, other than through his silence. But when you say, other than his silence, it makes it sound like there's some inadequacy there. And I think that's doing the violence to it that Dogen says, hey, let's not do violence to it. Yeah, that's not what I meant. I don't mean, don't do violence. Just leave him alone, right? Let him alone in order to have what he understood settle. You don't think that that's enough.

[29:22]

Suzuki Roshi says that he's still thinking dualistically. I don't know if that's right. It may not be. Just because he said that doesn't mean it's right. Yeah, well, I wonder just the kind of, again, the way he sets it up with him already having had transmission. Well, there's this idea, you know, if you have enlightenment, you'll never be wrong. Or that, you know, you can't have some further understanding. Yes, in this instance he was right there with the question, with the statement about being a Jānis. How would you express it? How would I express it? Not with the silence, that would be... Well, I don't mean how you'd express the thing.

[30:28]

I mean, how do you express what happened to Tachi? What happened to Tachi? Just my reading of Dogen is that in Tachi's silence, he offered a completely appropriate capping phrase to Nan Wei's comment about that. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. I think that's right. But at the same time, it has the feeling of being stunned, or some astonishing kind of revelation, in which just his silence expressed his understanding. That's where I see it.

[31:32]

Earlier you mentioned this sort of allowing him to penetrate. Allowing him to settle. I mean earlier, Vax, when you were talking about studying Dogen's works, it was just sort of, in the study, allowing it to penetrate. Anyway, I was just thinking that my own level of permeability is not so... on this one yet, so I don't have the ability to take on it. But again, it just struck me as a kind of vanilla, pretty-ish sort of sounds. So, not so stunned. Okay. Sugi Roshi says he is still involved in the practice to attain something. That's his take. Do you have a... transcript of the lecture? I just have that written down here. Okay. So then, Bhanu, are you studying seated meditation, or are you studying seated Buddha?

[32:48]

In other words, are you practicing, or are you just studying Buddhism, or just going after enlightenment? Are you just trying to attain enlightenment, or are you practicing? So, studying seated meditation is practice, and studying seated Buddha is going after enlightenment. So, which one are you doing? This is the big question for everybody, and, you know, the question you brought up, We should understand this. Dogen's purpose in going to China, when he was studying Tendai Buddhism and then he studied with Eisai, Rinzai Buddhism for a while in Japan. But his big question was, if everyone has Buddha nature, why do we have to do anything? Why aren't we okay just the way we are?

[33:58]

If is intrinsic to everyone, why do we have to do anything about it? Why do we have to study? Why do we have to practice? If we already have Buddha nature? That was his question. And so he went to China. And this is his response to that question. Although we have Buddha nature, although we're Buddha, In order to manifest Buddha, there has to be practice. Practice manifests Buddha, even though everyone is potentially Buddha. Without practice, it doesn't manifest. It's like electricity is everywhere, but until you channel it, it doesn't appear as electricity to us. So, in practice, doing one is doing the other.

[35:12]

Without practice, it's just going after a carved dragon. So, investigating these words, we should distinguish the essential activity of the ancestral ancestors, patriarchal ancestors. Without knowing what the full reality of studying seated meditation is, We do know here that it is studying seated Buddha. I'll read that again. Without knowing what the full reality of studying seated meditation is, in other words, we don't really know the full reality of seated meditation, we do know here that it is studying seated Buddha. So the one who practices seated meditation is seated Buddha. But who but a scion of true descent could say that studying seated meditation is studying seated Buddha?

[36:15]

Only someone that knows that could say that. We should know, indeed, that the seated meditation of the beginner's mind, this is where Suzuki Roshi got his term, right, beginner's mind, is the first seated meditation. I don't like the way he words that. It's more like, When you sit in zazen for the first time with a beginner's mind, it's true seated meditation. It's true Buddha sitting zazen. I'll read it again. We should know indeed that the seated meditation of a beginner's mind is the first seated meditation, and the first seated meditation is the first seated Buddha. Right? In speaking of this seated meditation, Nanyue said, if you're studying seated meditation, meditation is not sitting still. Now, I have a little problem with this translation, because the meaning here is, if you're studying seated meditation, meditation is not just the ordinary sitting still.

[37:20]

In other words, it's not the sitting still of sitting down in a chair, or lying down. And he even says that this is the meaning, but he says, but not here. In this footnote, number 19, Zaga usually means sitting and lying down in an ordinary sense. Here, probably better taken simply as sitting. I don't think so, because nobody else translates it that way. It means sitting in an ordinary way. Seated meditation is not just the ordinary sitting down and lying down, ordinary sitting and lying down. Then it's easier to understand what he's saying here. The point of what he says here is that seated meditation is seated meditation and is not ordinary sitting still. It doesn't mean it's not sitting still, it means it's not the ordinary sitting still. From the time the fact... Excuse me, where did the word ordinary come from?

[38:26]

I just put it in there. And when you say ordinary, you mean the way we sit outside of dharma. Right. The way people usually sit outside of dharma. If you're a Zazen, if you're a Zen student, the way you sit may be Zazen. Right? From the time the fact that it is not sitting, ordinary sitting still, has been singly transmitted to us, our unlimited sitting still is our own self. So unlimited sitting still is zazen. In other words, there's no boundary, no limit to what zazen is. And this unlimitedness is our true self. That's the point, is that this unlimitedness is our true self. When he says, drop the self, it means to realize the unlimited self of Zazen, which is the whole universe.

[39:42]

Why should we inquire about close or distant familial lines? How could we discuss delusion and awakening? Who would seek wisdom and eradication? Why should we inquire about close or distant familial lines? Close and distant, he says, in the footnote, here probably refers to the logical relationship between our human sitting and Buddha's seated meditation. So our, you know, close and distant, we say, sentient beings and Buddhas. ordinary beings and Buddhas. This is quite distant, right? There are ordinary human beings and then there are Buddhas. That's distant relationship. But in Mahayana Buddhism, ordinary, or in Zen, ordinary sentient beings are Buddha and Buddha is ordinary sentient beings. There's no difference between ordinary sentient beings and Buddha.

[40:49]

Or there's no difference between sentient beings and Buddha. or ordinary people. I don't know about ordinary, but in other words, this is close relationship. Distant relationship is sentient beings and buddhas. Close relationship is buddhas and sentient beings are not two. This is the fundamental understanding of Soto Zen. Then why did you say meditation is not sitting still? Ordinary sitting still. Well, not in a sense. Everyone... All right, sentient beings and Buddha are one through practice. In other words, sentient beings and Buddha are... are... sentient beings and Buddha is the same.

[41:53]

But realization of sentient beings and Buddha is the same, is only realized through practice. Okay? Realization manifests as asana. So how could we discuss delusion and awakening, right? Awakening or realization includes delusion. So this is back to your thing, you know. If we want realization, of course, you know, you want to get rid of delusion. If you get rid of delusion, then you have realization. But it doesn't work that way. Realization includes delusion, and delusion includes realization. This is basic Mahayana understanding. That you don't try to get rid of Hinayana understanding is You make a big effort to cut off delusions and get rid of them.

[42:55]

And, you know, ascetic practice is based on the idea that if you torment the body and punish the body and withdraw from all stimulus, that you withdraw into this very pure realm. because there's no impurities. But Zen practice understanding is that purity exists within impurity, and impurity exists within purity. There's purity and impurity, but they go together. The duality of purity and impurity is reconciled in realization. We have the phrase, samsara is nirvana, and nirvana is samsara.

[44:02]

That means what I just said. It sounds that the Zen versus the Hinayana is much more complete and full, at the same much more difficult as well. Well, it's difficult because you can't explain nonduality. So you have to express oneness or nonduality through dualistic terms. That's why Dogen's term, he takes these dualistic terms and uses them nondualistically. So you have to understand that. That's why it's so confusing. because he uses an ordinary term, a dualistic term, but he's using it non-dually. And you have to understand that. He used Mu as an example of that.

[45:08]

Mu means no, but Mu means beyond yes and no. Beyond yes and no is the non-duality of no. So the monk asked Joshu, does the dog have a buddha nature? He said, no. Then the next monk came in, does the dog have buddha nature? He said, yes. Well, yes and no are dualistic terms. Yes is on this side and no is on that side. But no includes yes, non-dualistically. And yes includes no, non-dualistically. So this is why when you get mad at somebody and you make them into the object and you're the subject, that's duality. And duality does exist. I'm the subject, you're the object.

[46:10]

But to realize I was thinking of something that you said a few years ago. I thought of it the other day at the work meeting. We were talking about the water quality here and everything. And I remember it was something like this. There's no such thing as impure water. Water is pure. Sometimes there's other things in it. That's right. The water is always pure. It might be pure soap. It was pure water. That's right. The water is always pure. But there are a lot of impurities in the water. As a matter of fact, in this water, you know, we live also in the water. We live in the ocean called the air, which is full of, completely full of dust, you know, chock full of dust. When you see the light, you know, you don't see the dust, and then when the light shines through the window, you know, you see all the dust is just booming around, you know, continuously.

[47:14]

So, part of the dust is what we call food. So, you can't live, they say fish can't live in pure water. Fish cannot live in pure water. Human beings cannot live in pure air, in a pure world, because it's not our nature. Our nature is to live in impurity. so to speak. We just call it impurity. But because it's a dualistic world, and whichever pole you look at, there's an opposite pole. Every pole has an opposite pole. Good. As soon as you set up the banner of good, then you've also set up the banner of bad. And as soon as you set up the banner of right, you've also set up the banner of up.

[48:17]

So, whatever we set up, we create our enemy, or our antagonist. If you carry that argument to wanting enlightenment or seeking whatever, there has to be the other side to that too. What's the other side? Not wanting enlightenment, or not wanting... So you neither want nor not want. The trick of zazen is neither wanting nor not wanting. So as you say, just sit. Just sit. It's so hard to just sit. It's not hard, but it's hard to really convince yourself that that's OK. Otherwise, it's not. the realm of non-duality.

[49:19]

As soon as you start thinking, as soon as you start cutting the cat in two, you have one side and the other. So how do you stay right there in the balance? How do you stay right there on that vital edge without falling into one side or the other? Sit still? Well, you know, You can't get caught by grasping or aversion. Because grasping is stopping the process, and aversion is stopping the process. So you just follow the schedule. And leave the schedule. That's right, yeah, thank you very much.

[50:19]

Leave, leave. Leave. Lead. No leaving. Okay, so, there's no need to eliminate delusion, is what he's saying. Why should we inquire about closer distance? How could we discuss delusion and awakening? Who would seek wisdom in eradication? Eradication means getting rid of all the delusion. Then Nan Yue said, if you're studying seated Buddha, Buddha is no fixed mark. A mark, you know, is a technical term, meaning characteristic. So, the mark of fire is heat, the mark of water is wet, and the mark of Buddha or Buddha nature has no fixed mark.

[51:33]

In other words, it can't be identified as any specific quality, although you can attribute all kinds of qualities to it. That's not its identifying mark. It has no identifying mark. So if you tried to mark it, it would be this dualistic mind covering it? Yes. Well, of course, the dualistic mind wants to identify everything. And when you identify, you divide. So Buddha is the non-divided mind, But Buddha is also the divided mind, or dualistic mind. So discrimination is the word here, which means to cut in two. Discriminate means to partition. So when we partition, we're cutting up the pie, as Linda said last time, right?

[52:39]

We talked about the pie. Somebody did. It was you. I'm sorry. You talked about the pie being one piece, and then we cut it into various sections and eat it. So, you can't eat the whole pie. You know, you... Some people can. Well, there's, you know, when you can swallow... There's this old Zen saying, when you can swallow the whole ocean in one gulp, then you have it. Come back to me when you can swallow the whole ocean in one gulp. When you can eat the whole pie in one bite. You have to be able to do that. I'm sorry. But we cut up the pie in order to, you know, make, oh, well I can eat this piece, you know, you can eat that piece. That's good. We make sure that we divide it fairly. So, such is the way to say

[53:41]

What is to be said? The reason the seated Buddha is one or two Buddhas, that means more than just oneness, right? That means divided, is that he adorns himself with no fixed mark. In other words, he can appear as this, and he can appear as that. Or Buddha can appear this way, or Buddha can appear that way. One or two faces. One or two Buddhas. And so one or two here, the reason the seated Buddha is one or two is that he adorns himself with no fixed mark. So one means oneness and two means duality. So there's one Buddha, but there are also myriad Buddhas. And myriad Buddhas are the myriad faces of the one Buddha. So although Buddha has no fixed mark, you can point to anything and say, there's Buddha.

[54:49]

That's why sitting zazen is the whole Buddha. Because in order to swallow the whole world, Suzuki Roshi used to say, if you try to chase a comet and catch it, people will pity you. If you try to catch the tail of a comet. What's a comet? You know the comet? The big thing that flows through the air, through the sky? Halley's Comet. From airplanes? Like a meteor. A shooting star. With a big trail behind it. If you try to catch the tail of a shooting star, people will feel sorry for you. You can't really do it, right? So if you try to know everything, you try to understand the whole world, the whole universe, people will feel sorry for you because it's too much.

[56:01]

So you understand the whole universe by entering here. You understand the whole thing by entering this little teeny place, this concentrated place where body, mind, breath and the universe are all packed into one teeny grain of sand called Zazen. And it's not a matter of understanding. And still people pity you. And still people pity you. And still people pity you. It's expressing, not understanding, you know. And then, there is understanding, but there's understanding and there's also expression. But understanding has to be expressed.

[57:05]

So you have to express your understanding. Sitting is expressing your understanding whether you understand or not, if you're really sitting. How do you really sit? How do you really sit? By whipping the cart. Save your questions. What? It makes sense to save that for tomorrow. Boy, you're going to get some good questions here. So the seated Buddha is difficult to avoid. Since he is a Buddha with no fixed mark, the seated Buddha is difficult to avoid. That's right. Because it's everywhere, right? It's very difficult to avoid, because everywhere you look is seated Buddha. whatever you, you know.

[58:14]

These poems of Hongzhi that I've been reading at night express this so beautifully. I keep wanting to kind of comment on those poems because they really express it very beautifully. Therefore, since it is adorned with this mark of Buddha, since it is... Therefore, since it is adorned with this Buddha is no fixed mark, the mark of Buddha is no fixed mark. That's the mark, you know. The mark of Buddha is no fixed mark. Therefore, he taught it as no mark. Hmm? Therefore, Shaburi, he taught it as no mark. Therefore, he taught it as no mark. If you're studying seated meditation, you are a seated Buddha. So that's the answer. If you're studying seated meditation, you are a seated Buddha, whether you realize it or not.

[59:20]

As Nan Yue goes on to say, who would grasp or reject something? I just talked about that. Who would grasp or reject something as not the Buddha? So whatever you grasp and reject is also the Buddha. Who would grasp or reject it as the Buddha? I'm sorry. Who would grasp or reject something as not the Buddha? Who would grasp or reject it as the Buddha? It is because seated meditation has sloughed off all grasping and rejecting that it is a seated Buddha. I just talked about that, right? That's what Seated Buddha is. That's what practice is, sloughing off, grasping, and rejecting. You know, in basic Buddhism, at the center of the wheel is greed, hate, and delusion, the snake, the pig, and the chicken.

[60:30]

Those are the three roots of the snake, the pig, and the chicken. Delusion? Delusion, right. Greed, hate and delusion. Greed, ill will and delusion are the three roots of evil. So greed is grasping, anger or ill will is aversion, and delusion is not being able to So, the three roots of wholesomeness, wholeness, wholesome means whole, basically, of whole or oneness, or non-duality, is non-greed, non-hate, non-delusion.

[61:37]

sloughing off, grasping and rejecting is like sloughing off. Another way of saying it is greed and ill will. But grasping and rejecting is more than that. It's like not hanging on to anything, letting everything come as it comes and go as it goes, which doesn't mean that you don't make choices. And there are some very good koans about this. It doesn't mean that you don't make choices. Every moment we're making a choice, but what is our choice based on? If our choice is just based on grasping, or if we make choices on the basis of ego, in other words, then we get caught in the dualistic realm. by grasping and aversion.

[62:44]

Getting caught by grasping and aversion means getting caught by ego, by a sense of self. Letting go of a sense of self means you let things come as they come and go as they go, but you can still make choices. But the choices are not based on ego as the center. They're based on Buddha as the center. It means that the choices come out of intention rather than from karmic volition. How do you know? Don't you practice that? No, but I know that I was shook. Well, I don't necessarily know. Well, the way you know it is that you know when your actions, when you're not being caught by your actions, And you know that you're not creating a harmful karma in the world.

[63:58]

I don't think I know. Come back. Come back? You have to come back after four months. You're not finished yet. So, he said, it is because seated meditation has sloughed off all grasping and rejecting that it is the seated Buddha. If you're studying seated meditation, you are a seated Buddha. In a non-abiding dharma, who would grasp or reject is not the Buddha.

[65:05]

Non-abiding dharma means impermanence. something that is impermanent. Dharma with a big D, which means the law or the truth. Dharma with a small d means all things. So the dharma, which is Buddhist study and Buddhist understanding and Buddhist truth and reality, is about the dharmas, which are all the elements that we're constantly engaged with. Yes? When he says, who would grasp or reject something as not a Buddha, that sounds to me like you're just saying that our life is the dharma of suffering, those are the small, huge dharmas. And then, when he says, who would grasp or reject it as the Buddha,

[66:08]

That is not so clear what that means, unless it's when you start somehow saying that this is what the Dharma is. Can you say something about what that second sentence means? Who would grasp or reject something as not the Buddha? In other words, everything is the Buddha. Right. Who would grasp or reject it as the Buddha? In other words, if you say, this is the Buddha, Is that right? If we say it's not the Buddha, is that right? So, both are right as long as there's no grasping or rejecting. So delusion, you know, we go through the realm of delusion like an earthworm eating the earth, and yet at the same time we're completely free of the earth. free of everything.

[67:11]

So the point is, how do you find this great freedom within your activity? How do you find great freedom, ultimate freedom, within as an earthworm? In other words, we go through the world with our mouth open. And it comes in and goes out, you know? And we leave this trail. So, how do you find your ultimate freedom within this problem, rather than trying to get out of the problem? By not grasping and not rejecting. That's freedom. Grasping and rejecting are the chains and kangs of our life.

[68:16]

In other words, we bind ourselves because we don't know how to let go. We catch everything, you know. You son of a bitch. Oh yeah. That's catching yourself. Reacting. It's allowing yourself to be caught. And if you look at the world, Everybody's getting caught by something. We're getting caught by money. We're getting caught by objects. We're getting caught by anger. We're getting caught by greed. We're getting caught by delusion. We're getting caught by everything that we grasp onto. In Zazen, you don't grab onto anything. But you do, you know. As soon as your legs start to hurt, you say, oh god, there it goes. Instead, it's opening up to it and letting it go.

[69:16]

You have to become one with the problem. As soon as you start to fight it, you're lost. That's rejecting. That's pushing aversion, right? Oh, I don't want this. Oh no. Or some good feeling comes. Oh yeah, don't go away. Don't go away. This is it, this is enlightenment. This is the greatest feeling I ever had. As soon as you start to think of that, then pretty soon any change in that means pain. Any change in the good feeling you have means pain. Oh God, now it's different. It gets worse and worse. Because you're worried about it. You can't worry about it. The thing that causes us our biggest problem is the worrying about it. I'll tell you. Worrying about it will cripple us. Don't worry, be happy. Don't worry. If you're happy, be happy.

[70:17]

But when you're not happy, don't long for your happiness. It seems like the minute that you, that I realized that this is it, either in grassroots or in Christian life, I lost it. That's right. Because once I recognize it, I'm so caught up in recognizing it that I can't even enjoy it when I have it. So there is a joy that runs through Zazie, or runs through our life, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether we feel good or bad. This is GGU Samadhi, you know, GGU Samadhi. Self-joyous Samadhi or self-fulfilling Samadhi means the joy that has nothing to do with whether you're feeling good or bad. It means the joy that comes from the realm of non-duality.

[71:23]

In other words, not liking one thing better than another. It's really hard to not prefer one thing over another. But when you can actually practice that way, whatever comes, comes. The way it comes, you let it come. The way it goes, you let it go. Then you become very joyful. It just arises, you know? And it's not like... It has nothing to do with trying to be happy. Because it's happiness no matter what's happening. It's not creating some special condition. In other words, whatever happens to you, you can appreciate it. So if you're grasping, you don't reject that either? Sloughing off, grasping, rejecting? Does that mean not rejecting, grasping? Well... grasping, rejecting?

[72:25]

That's a good point. You know, when... For instance, let's take thoughts. In zazen, we say, sit without thinking, right? Don't conjure up thoughts. And yet, all these thoughts are coming into your mind. And then, you say, but I'm not supposed to think, so I'll drive them away. Driving them away is aversion. And hanging on to them is grasping so you don't try to do anything you just let go just let go of them and just come back to your breathing you don't get angry at your thoughts you don't get angry at yourself you don't make judgments you don't say this is good or this is bad or i'm doing the wrong thing or anything like that you just you just realize oh i think i'm supposed to be doing something

[73:28]

and you bring your attention back to the breath, or you bring your attention back to the posture, and re-establish what your intention is. Because you're getting carried away by your feelings, and your thoughts, and your emotions, instead of your intention, which is to just sit there with your posture and your breath. So we're kind of, you know, this stuff is constantly going on, and our intention is just to sit with a posture and breath. You have to be very careful not to get angry, not to let all this stuff arise. If it arises, it's okay, but not to hold on to it, not to make this judgment. Oh, I sat there the whole time and my mind was going the whole time. Well, everybody's mind is going the whole time in Zazen. It's not bad. The bad part is that you can't accept it. The bad part is that it bothers you.

[74:32]

Just don't be bothered. It's easier said than done. But that's what you're supposed to be doing in Zazen. I was thinking of Dogen saying, take the backwards step. Sort of like, get out of there. Get out of the way. Quit trying to get rid of grasping or quit trying to change the thoughts into awareness of breath. Just let go. But letting go means include. That's right. So including means you just have to get bigger and bigger and bigger. As Andrew says. Didn't you say that the other day? You just have to get bigger. And that's what you have to do. Because as long as you have a limitation, as long as you have a boundary, then whatever fills you up is going to burst you. So you have to just get no boundary, and that's what he's talking about.

[75:35]

No boundary, the realm of no boundaries. It seems like the hardest thing to include is dying, or just death, you know, physical death. Right, that's right. Not to grasp onto life. Not to grasp onto life, or death. not to be attached to life, not to be attached to death, because life and death are another duality. So life, real life, includes death. Real death includes life. But the life and death we are caught by is life on this side and death on this side. So as Dogen says, the main subject here is the problem of birth and death. That's what we're really studying. So, when we inhale, I won't carry this on much longer, when we inhale, that's like resurrection, and when we exhale, that's expiration.

[76:45]

And on each breath, on each moment, is the moment of birth and death. If you can study that, then you have some handle on what is birth and death. Also grasping and letting go. That's right, grasping and letting go are grasping and aversion. Grasping and aversion are the realm of birth and death. So Buddhism, Buddhadharma, is how do you get free of birth and death within birth and death? Not how do you get free of birth and death by chucking it, but how can you be free of birth and death within birth and death? Just like that. There's some nice things here that I would like to continue with.

[77:51]

Unfortunately, we can't. But this thing about killing the Buddha and grasping the mark of sitting. I just want to say, grasping the mark of sitting means Not being attached to zazen. Don't grasp the mark of sitting. So, it's a very important point to not be attached to zazen, to not be attached to sitting. To be able to sit and have freedom within sitting without being attached to sitting, which doesn't mean you just do it when you want to. Sorry. I already know. I want to explain for five minutes what we're going to do tomorrow morning. Why don't you go ahead.

[78:52]

So tomorrow morning we're going to have a shosan ceremony and we're going to do it right after breakfast. I mean right after and we'll finish breakfast and take maybe a 20 25-minute break, depends on what time we have to finish breakfast. But there'll be a bathroom break and a little tea break here. And then a densho bell will start, 15-minute densho, calling you back to the zendo. So that's the timing on this thing. And then I just want to do a couple of little explanations of how this will go. So let me draw a quick. We'll be on the same side of the zendo. We do the choson and so forth. So here's the altar, and here's the front doors. And we'll have sort of tans. So we'll line the zabatons up on the floor again like we do. This is quite a scale, but anyway.

[79:54]

So imagine two rows of zabatons here before the tans. But anyway, and then the abbot will be in an abbot's chair right in this position. Two... I'll get out of the way. Can you see this? Yes. Two Zavatans back here. There'll be two more up here. They'll be for the purpose... The two up here will be for the purpose of bowing. There'll be one somewhere in here, which will be for the purpose of questioning, asking a question. So the way the ceremony will go is you'll come to the Zendo, line up your zabaton on the floor. The abbot will come in, eventually, do three bows. We'll all do three bows with him, just regularly offering stick incense and coming back to the back of the altar, bowing that and doing three bows. And we'll do the same bows from our places here. And then once that's completed, he'll sit down.

[80:56]

There'll be some statements made, one by the Eno, one by the abbot. And then we'll start the questioning. like the head dowan, the shuso, and the ino, and the director. But anyway, once that starts, the questioning will go down, alternating from one side to the other, the front row. And then when the front row is completed, back up to the back rows, and alternating again back and forth. So what you do when it comes your turn, you just come down to the back, we'll call these waiting mats, Sometimes we do bows. Pardon? The on-deck circle. On-deck circle, right. It's where you sort of swing your, what's it called? Cosco bats? Anyway, and then when this person has asked their question and had their interaction with the abbot, they will walk up and if they came from this side, they'll do, do you want to still do three bows at the end?

[81:58]

Yeah. Okay, you'll do three bows at this bowing mat and take your place again. And if you happen to come off of this side to ask your question, you go back. You don't bow before? What bows are you talking about? After asking a question. Oh, I see, I see. Normally you do three in advance and three at the end. Oh, yeah, no. Okay, we'll eliminate. So the three bows before are the three bows we're going to do when the Avatar... We just do three bows together, you know, instead of the usual way, or one of the usual ways is for everybody to bow individually before they ask a question, but this way you just all bow together three times. Okay. And we'll eliminate the three vowels afterwards. Okay. So when you're finished with your question, just go back this way and take your seat. Okay. So, we won't ever be using those bowing mats, then? No, they won't be there. Forget I said that. They will not be there. But we do the three before we bow? No, we don't bow at all. We will. We'll do three bows together. Yes. In the very beginning, when the abbot comes in and offers incense. And that'll be the end of that. These will just be waiting mats.

[82:59]

In the beginning and the end. These will just be, just, just, yeah, there'll be three bows. But we don't bow on them. You don't bow at them. You just stand there. And then, and then, as this person moves off, questioning, you'll move up to your turn. Okay, and so when you move up to this question, Matt, you'll go down in what's called Choki on your knees, but not Seiza, which is when you're sitting down on your heels, but you're just down on your knees with your hands in Gassho, and you can address the Abbot as, Sojin Sensei, why is the sky blue? You know, ask your question. And when you feel finished with your questioning, because you can ask the second question, too, to his answer, but anyway, when you're finished with your interaction, then again, you just go around back to your place, depending on which side you came from.

[84:00]

If you're not satisfied with the first response, you can ask again, you know, in some other way. But it's not a big conversation. So these questions should be sort of like one-liners? It's not something elaborate. Not an elaborate concept. You know, not philosophical stuff. It should be... Why don't we have a breakfast this morning? You can ask that question, Julien. Well, I don't tell people what to call me. Call me whatever you want. Not seriously. Seriously, you can just call me whatever you like.

[85:12]

I'm not going to tell you what to call me. Don't call me Mel, because it's not right in this situation. And then, let's see, who else was there? What do the servers eat, or do they miss? The servers tomorrow will just eat an informal, get some bowls and eat, you know, don't rush. don't do a whole formal meal, so you'll have time. You should have time. So is this fairly clear? Yeah, I think it's clear, but people should know they stay on their tans, and people do stay on their tans in their seats. They don't come down, or they stay up. We may have to use it. We'll see how we can arrange. We'll put these zanatans very close together and in two rows, and we may be able to get everyone on the floor. But if not, maybe the people on the tan will You have to sit on the ton until it's your turn to come down, but we'll see how that works when we start setting it up. Any other questions? So you're never going to set up all the places?

[86:15]

We're not going to come in and get our... No, we'll start to set up, but when you come in, you can bring your seat from the other side or, you know, see how it goes. Who asked the first question? The last one is a Jesus. The last one is a Jesus. And don't forget to set your clocks back tonight. Oh, we got up an hour earlier. Yeah, but it's 3.30. Yeah, the wake-up bell is at 3.30. No, I'm just kidding. So you get an extra hour of sleep. Okay, so that's it. What time is it exactly by no time? I don't know.

[87:08]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ