I think that in this kind of class, we have to strike a balance between reading the text and discussing the material, and be careful not to go too far from one side to the other. And I think I've been reading a bit because the material is so interesting that I want to follow, I want us to understand the logical arguments, not arguments but presentation. I think that we also need some discussion, but I don't want the discussion to degenerate into opinionatedness. So when we have a discussion, I would like it to be focused on what we're studying.

[01:05]

It's easy to find interesting things to talk about and get seduced by them. So, I'm going to try and be careful. First, this evening, I want to talk a little bit about where we left off. There was this question about the authors. Before I say that, I just want to say, so I'm leaving the responsibility for studying the text up to you. Since you all have a copy, I really would like you all to study the text. The text is actually laid out in a systematic way to make it very easy to understand what the author is talking about.

[02:16]

If you don't have much background in Buddhist understanding, what seems very clear to me may not seem clear to you. So that's kind of one reason why I like going over the text. But nevertheless, I really want to put the responsibility on you to read the text. So, we were talking about the author's, Sun Bei Park's, attitude toward the Pure Land School of Buddhism. Pure Land School, I can't go into all of the history of it, but it started in China and moved to Japan and developed in various ways through that movement. And the way we usually think about Pure Land School is that it's a very devotional school of Buddhism, which is rather divergent from what we call original Buddhism, the Buddhism of the arhats, Mahayana Buddhism.

[03:32]

We don't know exactly when Mahayana Buddhism began, feel that Mahayana Buddhism began with Buddha, of course, and all the elements that were developed later in Mahayana Buddhism were germinal in Shakyamuni's time, and if you study you see that actually they're there. Up until the first century and maybe after that, the different schools actually studied together in the same monastery. And those different, what we call, let's say, the practice of the elders, Theravada, and the practice of the Mahayana, were not so different.

[04:39]

various developments from some of these germinal ideas became more prominent in what was called the Mahayana, the great vehicle. One reason why the Mahayana developed was as a reaction to the what seemed like self-centered practice of the arhats. And the Mahayana was a more engaging and more accepting practice for the bigger body of Buddhist practice. So that's why hindayana means narrow. smaller, but I think it means narrow practice. It's like very specific and doesn't develop.

[05:47]

We call it fundamentalism in America. So the Mahayana became more developing. what you'd call... It's a very simple word, but I can't recall it. It's developmental models, which, you know, I think that my own feeling is that religion cannot get stuck in some place, but it's always evolving. So it's the developmental evolving practice of any religious practice according to the time and the place and the situations and the dispositions of the practitioners.

[07:01]

So this kind of development is brought about something called the Pure Land School, where Amida Buddha, there was some practitioner whose name I can't remember, but because of this practitioner's wonderful practice through many aeons, he became Amida Buddha. And he said, my vow is to create a land, place, where anyone, any person can come when they die, or even before they die, by reciting the name of Amitabha. by sincerely, you know, they don't have to really do anything else particularly, but I have to say there are many different ways of practicing Pure Land Buddhism.

[08:12]

And there's, you know, the stereotype of how it's practiced which is basically chanting the name of Buddha, or visualizing this pure land. So visualization is one of the main practices of a certain school of pure land Buddhism. So pure land Buddhism became very popular. So the question is, Is it popular because it's easy, or is it popular because it draws people, because of affinity? So I think there are all different kinds of reasons why people practice Pure Land Buddhism, and anything you can think of is probably included. So when Sungbe is talking about, he's not presenting his own ideas, he's presenting

[09:18]

the understanding of Mahayana Buddhists when he says, when he talks about the doctrinal practice and the ancestral practice. ancestral practices that I already am Buddha, therefore I can practice being Buddha. And the doctrinal practices, if I practice hard enough I can become Buddha, so there's a gap between myself and Buddha, whereas in the ancestral school or way of thinking, I am already Buddha, therefore I am practicing to establish or to express Buddhahood.

[10:31]

So these are the two fundamental propositions that we're studying. So when he talks about the Pure Land School, he sees that as, I am an ordinary person, and I will come to Buddha's land, according to this school. This is not the only school, of course, that he's talking about, but this is one example. So I just want to say that his understanding of Pure land school is not a put-down, because people think, because Shinran himself said that since this is the age of Mapo, that it's impossible for people to practice and find salvation, so it's better to just call on the name of Buddha, Amitabha, and be born in the pure land.

[11:38]

So that seems like, you know, because they can't do something, they do this, right? But Sungbe Park actually defends the Pure Land practice, because that's not the major reason why people practice it. And when you really study, you'll see that There are simply two different ways of practicing. So I just want to read a little bit of Sungbe's description of Pure Land Buddhism. So he says, I don't know if you've read the treatise on awakening Mahayana faith, which is a touchstone for Mahayana Buddhism, and in that treatise, Sungbe says that the author seemed to have made a mistake, because he, the author, he says, criticizes the Pure Land school.

[13:20]

for what makes it seem like a lesser way, because people can't do any other way, they do the Pure Land School. I remember Suzuki Gyorji saying, when people practice Zen, it's because they can't really do anything Too stupid to be able to do anything else. So, he says, one of the gravest misinterpretations of Buddha's doctrines is the assumption that Chan is the supreme teaching for people of the highest level of spiritual development, whereas Pure Land is designed for people at a lower level who are incapable of true meditation. Did you understand what I said? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, page 90. So, Chapter 11, Faith and Practice in Pure Land Buddhism.

[14:45]

And then, so he says, then this misinterpretation seems to be supported by the treatise on Awakening Mahayana Faith, which itself states at the end of the fourth chapter, I don't want to read that. I just want to read some little parts here that seem to be effective. So, he says, thus far it appears that Pure Land Buddhism, especially the extreme other power path ... Remember we talked about self-power and other power? Thus far, it appears that the Pure Land Buddhism, especially the extreme other-power path advocated by Shinran in Japan, is the opposite of the self-power path of Chan Buddhism, which emphasizes sole reliance on one's mind.

[15:56]

However, from the standpoint of salvation, the truly interesting question is not one of self-power, jīriki, versus other power, tāriki, but one of great ancestral faith versus doctrinal faith. The point here is that in Buddhism, right practice and right enlightenment require right faith. that is ancestral faith. However, ancestral faith can be developed from the viewpoint of either self-power or other-power. The criterion of ancestral faith is not self-power or other-power, but phultui, which is non-retrogression. or non-backsliding. So this is actually an important point. Non-backsliding, the point that he, what he points out is when there's a subject and an object, say we're the subject and we want to reach the object, which is a deity or something like that,

[17:14]

there's a gap and so as we reach for this object it's always possible to fall back. So this is a subject-object problem. In ancestral faith, there's no way that one can fall back because it's simply essence function. So our practice and enlightenment are a function of our essence of mind. That's why Zen practice is called the school of mind, or big mind, or essence of mind. There's no place to fall back to because there's no place to go to.

[18:17]

One is Buddha. We start from the place where others are reaching. So many schools of Buddhism reach for the sky, so to speak. seats you down in the middle of the essence. So sometimes, you know, we talked about Kim Il-sung, the Korean teacher in the 12th century. 13th century, who developed his practice called sudden enlightenment gradual practice. So, usually, a Buddha will be studied as gradual practice in sudden enlightenment.

[19:31]

But, Chino starts from enlightenment and then talks about how to practice within enlightenment. gradual practice. So, Dogen is very similar to that. Practice is enlightenment. Enlightenment is practice. And I think that Dogen and Chinul are very close. I don't know what Dogen knew about Chinul. But, let me say, one inch of practice is one inch of enlightenment. Six minutes of practice is six minutes of enlightenment. So, since the most important consequence of patriarchal faith, or I'm calling it ancestral faith, is sudden enlightenment, it is the sudden and unretrogressive quality of our face

[20:34]

not in its self-power or other power orientation that determines whether it is ancestral or doctrinal. So then I'll read another part here on page 95. It says, this sudden and non-backsliding nature of pure land, faith, makes it a true ancestral faith. From the standpoint of ancestral faith, it is sudden enlightenment and non-retrogression that are important. Whether one says, I am Buddha, as in the self-power path of Chan, or I have already been saved by Amida Buddha's primal vows, as in the other power path of Pure Land. So thus, it can never be said that Pure Land doctrine is for lower people, lower level people, and that Chan is for higher level people. According to the theory of ancestral faith, everyone is a perfect Buddha. Chan Buddhists are perfect Buddhas entering the Chan gate, whereas Pure Land Buddhists are perfect Buddhas entering the Pure Land gate.

[21:40]

We can characterize these two paths in a very general way as follows. Pure Land is the Buddha's great compassion, and Chan is the Buddha's great wisdom. However, the Buddha's great compassion and great wisdom must always go together, is based on a great faith, which is ancestral faith. Compassion and wisdom, of course, are inseparable. When one has compassion, wisdom arises, and when one has true wisdom, compassion arises. Compassion is the activity of wisdom. So, the key message conveyed by the theory of ancestral faith is simply this, do not postpone your salvation, awaken now, whether you accomplish this through other power or self-power is of secondary concern.

[22:46]

So, do you have any questions? I mean, repentance somehow seems to impart, well, I slipped, so let me get back on track. But if I'm understanding this right, the non-retrogression is, because you're wanting to repent, you're not backsliding. I mean, the going back and forth is part of the... Is that right? Yeah, we slip and slide around, but that's not the same as backsliding. Okay, so we slip and slide, but it's not backwards.

[23:48]

You don't slip out of the mode. Yeah, okay. What about Theravada practice? Who? Theravada practice. Yeah. No, I don't think so. Not that I can remember if he talks about that, but not so much. He's talking about Mahayana Buddhism. Okay, so Theravada would be doctrinal, right? Well, you know, the Arhat practice is to become enlightened. I think my understanding is that in that practice, you don't become Buddha. is Buddha. Buddha is like beyond our ability to become, and the highest you could go is as an arhat, which is various stages of enlightenment.

[24:52]

So they're thoroughly enlightened arhats, but they don't call themselves Buddhas. So Buddha is not the goal of the arhats. as far as my understanding goes. Reading a lot of John Shaw, it doesn't seem to present it all the same. No, it doesn't. It's a totally different attitude. Yeah, so, you know, I don't know enough. I don't know enough. But it just seems to be like, it seems overly simplistic to me. Because it seems to me that the really good teachers in both traditions include the others. It's only that we are Buddhic. We are Buddhic, but we also have to, like Suzuki Roshi said, we could use a little improvement. And Ajahn Chah says, yes, there's all these things we have to purify, but it's actually right here. You just don't see it.

[25:55]

So they include the other side. That's right. But in this case, we're talking about Mahayana understanding. If you read the Lotus Sutra there's a chapter called the Magic City and in this chapter Buddha is giving expedient means and I'm trying to remember exactly. I have to paraphrase because, you know, I don't remember everything exactly. I just kind of know the main circumstances. Two things. One, Buddha is giving this sermon to his, the Shravakas,

[27:05]

with the followers, those that are arhats, mainly the arhats, and he's saying, I've brought you this far, I've given you this image of this wonderful place, this wonderful magic city called Nirvana, and you think that this is it. but it's not it. You have to go further than this." And the arhats said, we can't go further than this. There is no place further to go than this. And so 500 arhats got up and left the assembly. So this is a famous story. And the gist of this story is that according to the Mahayana view in the Lotus Sutra, the arhats can only reach a certain level and they refuse to go any further.

[28:19]

So that's an example of Mahayana attitude, using the arhats as an example of their vision is not big enough. But someone like Ajahn Chah, there are these wonderful, wonderful Theravada teachers that sound just exactly like Suzuki Roshi and teachers of that level. And I also think that we don't think exactly the way people in the past thought. you know, there's an evolutionary thing going on. And we don't think in terms of Mahayana, Hinayana really anymore. And the so-called Hinayana Theravada school doesn't think in terms, some people do, but don't so much think in those archaic terms.

[29:34]

So, there's been a lot of development, and I think there's also mutual ... I don't see a lot of criticism nowadays, in America anyway, of different schools of Buddhism, because California, or America, especially California, is the melting pot of Buddhism in the world. You go to Tibetan, you can study with Tibetans, you can study with Theravadins, you can study with Pure Lands, you can study with Zen, you don't have to go very far because all those elements have come here. I mean, I'm sure that there are elements in their native countries that we don't experience, Basically, you can get the essence, pretty much, of those different schools. And people don't criticize each other very much.

[30:36]

They're more interested in finding out, well, what is this? What is your teaching? So I think that's more the spirit that we have, rather than comparing. And we do compare, but still. I think that spirit is here. We don't have a lot of criticism, whereas in the old days, there was a school, people criticized each other a lot. And they had big conferences, you know, seeing who was the best. I think they're just different schools for different folks. And the 12 schools of Buddhism, which are well-known and well-established, attract people because of the 12 different gates. And people have affinity for one or the other.

[31:44]

Picked up. Arhats are the Buddha's disciples who were on the path to enlightenment. And the arhat was supposedly a fully enlightened person. But then there was a question. It came up in Buddha's time, or a little after. Isn't an arhat a perfectly enlightened person? And then there was some arhat who did something that wasn't enlightened. Well, maybe not. But the arhat was respected. You know, when we have our one of our echoes, our dedication is to the 16 arhats and the followers who attained the supreme attainment of arhats, so we acknowledge and honor the arhats, right, you know, put them down, but the arhat was a kind of

[33:15]

People felt that the Arhats were elitist and a little bit self-centered, because they weren't ... at a certain point, this happens in religion all the time, like monks, you know, become very powerful as a body, and then people start getting rid of them, because they become too much of a power block, and this happened in China a lot, anyway, and also in Japan. But in the Lotus Sutra, there's a chapter where Buddha's talking to the arhats, and he's saying, where I have led you to is not the final place. And 500 arhats got up and walked out, But these were real people. Well, yeah, they were real people, of course. They were.

[34:25]

Yeah. I always thought it would be great to be in Arhat. What? Well, I always thought it was something to aspire to. Arhat means, one, it's worthy of an offering. Worthy of being fed and so forth. model of… gods are there as a model of arduous practice, which seems to me to be bringing forth the element of doctrinal faith in the midst of ancestral faith, or the symbiosis of the two.

[35:45]

on the road up to Rinzong there are little statues of these arhats. And so the arhats are always honored as an example of wholehearted practice. So we say about our practice that it's a That's what Suzuki Goshi used to say, Hinayana practice, the Mahayana mind. In other words, we have the spirit of the arhats in our practice, but our practice is big, and Mahayana. And if you go to China, and you go to the temples in China, many of these temples, you go around to a certain monstrous panorama of, how can I explain it, it's like the arhat world, the Dharmadhatu of the arhats, it's like all these statues and the drama is just overwhelming.

[37:14]

And they also have these buildings that have 500 arhat statues. And each one is different. Each one has a name that's different. So there's a lot of respect for the arhats who are actually Buddhist disciples. And so there's a lot of respect for that. But I don't know whether that's doctrinal or not. Because the arhats were wanting to gain enlightenment, but not to become Buddha. I see it as an expression of this yearning for enlightenment. Maybe there's a distinction between wanting to be enlightened Yeah, well it's an interesting question.

[38:31]

The dynamic is interesting. But I think, I guess my feeling was, whether it's to be Buddha, you know, I think that the implication here is, if you're practicing to be Buddha, then there's something missing. Yeah, there's something missing. we say, to raise the thought of enlightenment. And there are two ways to think about, to approach that. To arouse the thought of enlightenment means that I will strive to become enlightened.

[39:33]

And the other way of thinking about that is to raise the thought of enlightenment is to be enlightened. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you have realization. Because what brings you to practice is enlightenment. So could you distinguish between realization and enlightenment? Yeah, realization is realizing enlightenment. You think, I'm just a deluded person, right? No, one thinks, I'm just a deluded person. That's an enlightened thought. Enlightened thought is to realize, oh, I'm really just a deluded person. That's an enlightened thought. That's an enlightened thought, what's a realized thought? A realized thought is to actually realize that you have the same, your nature is Buddha.

[40:39]

Oh, I see. I realize that. I think most of us project... I will... Yeah, talk about yourself. Okay, myself. When I hear the word enlightenment, I think of the word you're using as realization. Yes, I understand. Generically the way the word enlightenment is usually used is how I understand what you're talking about. As realization, yeah, that's right. I agree with that. And Arhat is an enlightened Buddha. But the difference is in the doctrine. The Buddha has taken a vow to teach when the Dharma is gone. So the Buddha founds the new notes when it's gone. And the Arhats, in this view, who are

[41:44]

Well, yes, there's the Arhat and then there's the Pracheka Buddha. And the Pracheka Buddha is the Mahayana equivalent to the Arhat. So Pracheka Buddha is a self-enlightened Buddha, but is a kind of hermit and doesn't dedicate their realization to ... they lack compassion, so they're not interested in compassion, in compassionate action, whereas a true Buddha enlightening others, or to helping others to find realization.

[42:50]

So that came out of the criticism of the Arhat by the Mahayana. So yes, the Arhat has Buddha's enlightenment, but The Arhat ideal gave way to the Bodhisattva ideal. Yeah. I had a question too, and maybe it relates to this last thing about enlightenment and realization. In this definition of abiding firmly with resolute conviction in a state of clearness, tranquility, and freedom, So, I was walking along and this big purple flower was right by my face and I felt that that big purple flower was doing that.

[43:58]

And then if I see that, then I'm participating. Well, that's why we say the inanimate objects preach the Dharma. But what I feel about what's not there is I am not Buddha. And you said we're half Buddha, half not Buddha. No, I didn't say half not. I said... That's right. Yes, that's very different. And does that proportion ever change? It's always 50-50. This is not my statement, it's my cirriculars statement, but I use it a lot because I believe it. We can stand up for a few minutes. The other question that was brought up last time was the question of doubt.

[45:02]

In my talks, I've talked quite a bit about faith and doubt. like Rinzai Zen, which emphasizes koan study, doubt, so-called doubt, is indispensable, seems to be an indispensable quality. But whether or not, you know, the word doubt, I don't particularly, I don't think the word doubt totally fits, but I would see it more as questioning, questioning, like the other day, a couple of weeks ago, I gave a talk about what is it, the koan of what is it?

[46:18]

So this, what is it, is doubt, so to speak, but it's more like a question. It's like holding this question and questioning everything. You know, there's this saying, famous saying, which everybody knows, most Zen students know this, before practice, I thought that mountains were mountains and rivers and waters were waters. Rivers were rivers. After I became immersed in practice, I realized that mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers. And after realization, I realized mountains are just mountains, rivers are just rivers. So this second stage is the stage of doubt, or the stage of questioning. Mountains are not mountains.

[47:19]

We just say mountains are mountains. Rivers are not rivers. We just say rivers are rivers. So we have this sign language. Sign language means assigning everything a name. we give a name to everything. And then we think, well, that thing that we give a name, that which we give a name to, is that, and that's what it is. But questioning means, is that what it is? What is it? So, what is it is a wonderful koan. And that's raising this ball of doubt. Yes. I thought that that second stage was actually a stage of enlightenment where you're seeing things as it is without the labels.

[48:26]

And then the third stage is this realization. I don't know, I didn't really conceive of it as a doubt. It was almost like, you know, I thought it was just like, you know, a public altar, a walnut wood, it's just that. Well, the first stage, we just see everything without questioning it. That's the first. It's like we don't question. We simply take things at face value, right? The second stage, everything comes apart. That is enlightenment. Yeah. The questioning itself is enlightenment. Practice itself is enlightenment. The ball of doubt itself is enlightenment. And then the third stage is like, everything's just ordinary. You just see everything as ordinary, but not the same. Not the same at all.

[49:30]

So we simply act in an ordinary way, but with a different understanding. So that's one aspect of doubt. But doubt and faith, I think that this doubting, even in the Rinzai, when you have this koan and you're working with this koan and working with the koan, that's an act of faith. The doubt is an act of faith. because it's faith that keeps you working with the Kaun in doubt. So the basis of doubt actually is faith. Faith is actually the basis of all practices. I have two questions.

[50:36]

Is there ever faith without doubt? There's faith without doubt, seemingly. Well, blind faith has two different meanings. There is a faith that's called blind faith, which is like, you should believe this, and you say, okay. That's kind of like blind faith. or faith without reasoning, or faith without questioning. And that kind of faith is easily manipulated, because faith is so enthusiastic. Faith is our enthusiasm. It's our wanting to

[51:40]

offer ourselves. And when we want to offer ourselves, if we don't offer ourselves in the right way, we can easily be misguided. So doubt helps us to be guided. Doubt is our guidance. Doubt is our counterweight. to faith. Faith goes this way, and Daat goes this way. So, you have to have a counterweight to faith. Otherwise, it's just like a rocket without a tail. You know these fireworks? Great faith, but no direction. So doubt is very important and necessary as a counterweight to faith.

[52:45]

It gives you direction. It says, don't do that. Is that right? I know you want to do that, but you better not. Don't do that. So faith and doubt are inseparable, and they have two aspects of the same thing. So blind faith, in Ron's sense, is not retrospective and is not cautious, and is beguiled by things, right? So, just a minute. I lost my train of thought.

[53:49]

What about doubt without faith? Doubt without faith. Doubt without faith is… leads to skepticism, which is, it holds you back, but it doesn't let you to go forward. You can't go forward because you're stopped. So, and I've run across people like this a lot, and in our practice, you know, I can't do that, because my doubt won't let my faith, won't release me. So it's too tight, you know, doubt is too tight and I can't get released. So there's a saying, it's better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all. So, yes.

[54:53]

The thing that won't allow the person to be released, isn't that a belief rather than a doubt? Well, I mean, call it what you like. Call it what you like. That's just the word. Yeah, yeah, but the more that you have trust, because trust is an aspect of faith, so the more successful you are, the more you trust, and the more you trust, the easier it is to go forward, and the less doubt you have. and the less doubt you need.

[55:55]

So when you have really big faith and trust and confidence, then doubt should still be there, but it's not as, it's an easy doubt. But then things come up, you know. So overconfidence is not good. So sometimes we become overconfident, and then we lose our faith. I mean, we lose something. So that's why it's good to practice together, because what you don't see, others see. And then we help each other by saying, wait a minute, I think you're going overboard, or I think you're going in the wrong direction, be careful or something like that. Would you say, I'm not sure if the right word is realization or enlightenment, but would you say that faith... that realization or enlightenment are beyond faith and doubt?

[57:14]

That those are... that it's beyond faith and doubt? No. So it's faith and doubt always within realization? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Realization itself is faith. Faith is realization, but true faith is realization. That's the whole thing. Buddhist faith and sudden enlightenment, you know, People sometimes ask me, you know, about, don't you ever doubt what you're doing? Don't you ever have some doubt about it? And, how long have you been doing this? And you haven't, you know, I said, actually, I don't, I've never had a doubt. There's different kinds of doubt. There's one doubt, which is, I doubt

[58:17]

Buddhism, or I doubt what I'm doing, or I doubt the practice. So I've never doubted the practice, although I've doubted myself. I never thought, well, there's something wrong with this practice because I can't do it. There must be something in me rather than something in the practice. Maybe the bar is too high. If you're doing a high jump, you know, you say, well the bar is too high, you know, rather than, I'll keep practicing until I see if I can actually get over the bar, you know, rather than the bar is too high. So I've always seen, you know, maybe I should try harder rather than there's something wrong with the practice. So I've never had doubt in the practice. Practice should be more than we can do.

[59:18]

When you read books about Buddhism, it makes you feel like you're about this high. So that's why it's not so good to read too many books about Buddhism. Because you get an inferiority complex. is to set the bar impossibly high, and to go to the top of the ten-foot pole and keep on going. And that's where faith comes in. So, if it were attainable, or graspable, it wouldn't require faith. Well, if it were graspable, you'd have it and then you'd have to do something else. So the bar's way is much higher and you have to keep reaching and reaching and reaching.

[60:26]

And this is blindness, true blindness. There are two different blindnesses. One is blind faith, you believe whatever someone tells you. But true blind faith is you don't know what the outcome is. You don't know where it's going. You know the path, and you're taking one step at a time. And there are no assurances. There are no assurances. That's blind faith. But it's true blind faith. It's real blindness. It's like reaching for your pillow in the night. You know that one? For me, where it operates lately, it's been... And they feel real, and I trust that they're not, and let them go.

[62:22]

And so, that to me takes a lot of faith, that I can let these things go. You don't have to hang on to the feelings that come up. Right. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Push comes to shove. Yeah. doubt as thoughts and belief, but it's a matter of heart and your bones and your marrow, really.

[63:31]

Well, it's whole being. Yeah, whole being. It's not just an idea or a thought or a feeling, it's whole being. And then whole being, You know, when Buddha was on his deathbed, Ananda asked, well, who should we follow when you're gone? And he said, you should follow the Dharma. And what he meant by follow the Dharma is All things arise through conditions, causes and conditions, and everything is interconnected. This is the Dharma. Pratityasamutpada, conditioned arising.

[64:37]

That's who I am. I am conditioned arising. If you understand conditioned arising, you understand me, and you understand yourself, and you understand your true self, which is whatever it is that you feel is yourself arises with all beings on moment after moment. So it's all interconnected. So there is no self per se, but the totality is the self. So, this is why nothing can get lost. I remember Suzuki saying, even a stone, no matter how far you throw a stone, it doesn't get lost. Nothing gets lost in the universe. Because everything belongs to everything else.

[65:41]

Well, I was wondering, I've heard it said that Buddhism is a purification practice. It kind of goes back to the you're okay, but you need some improvement idea. Some people say it's okay to just be who you are, and if you're a person with a lot of problems, you don't try to improve yourself, because self-improvement, that's not what this practice is about. But then another teacher said, but this is actually Buddhism as a purification practice. It's about purifying emotions and purifying, becoming to the point where you don't have anger. And what Ed was talking about, I think, resonates with me.

[66:48]

Thinking about maybe if you're practicing that I know that they're not me, but they are me. And that I didn't create them, but they've been created for a long time. They don't even belong to me, really. But I'm kind of stuck with them now. So it's kind of, I just wonder about that question You know, and it goes back to the whole dynamic of, am I Buddha or am I not Buddha? Right. Purification, purity means non-duality. That's basic meaning in Buddha Dharma.

[67:52]

Purity means non-duality. So when we talk about self-improvement, we're talking about duality, right? But that doesn't mean that you can't transform yourself. Transformation is practice. Transformation comes through practice. Transformation comes through the practice of nonduality. And then when you practice nonduality, transformation happens. So the problem with self-improvement is that we're talking about doing something for the self, right? So we say if a person is depressed and doesn't know what to do, go out and help somebody else. Let go of this self-absorption

[68:54]

and spread yourself around, right? So, but you know, you're perfect the way you are, but you need a little improvement, right? So, everything we say has an opposite. You know, you say, improvement, not improvement, blah, blah, blah. You know, you can always bring up the other side, right? So, what's the non-dual aspect of those two sides? So yes, so that's like how we understand our practice. So when we say no self, well, what is it that's no self? It's the self that's no self. So to say no self doesn't mean there's nobody there. It means that that which is taken as a self is not a inherent self.

[69:58]

But we feel like we're ourselves, so we have to take care of that. We have to take care of that feeling of myself, myself, yourself. So, both is so. Both is true. So what's the non-duality of self and non-self? So that's why everything is a koan. This is called Genjo Goan. We're going to be faced with it all the time. People say, oh, you Soto people don't have koans. We have this great koan, you know, that we're working with all the time, which includes all the koans. But we don't make a big deal out of it. We just say, when you're doing something, do it thoroughly. You know, we talked about the two truths, and it seems a lot of the book is an exposition on the two truths, the relative truth and the absolute truth.

[71:04]

And this is just what you're saying, it's the same kind of thing. You can't get away from either truth. There is a self in the relative world, there's always going to be a self, and you can't negate that reality. But in the absolute realm, which is a little bit more difficult, our ordinary reality has a difficult time perceiving that. Enlightenment may be perceived Right, that's why we focus on the function rather than the essence. If you want to know the essence, you focus on the function. So practice is the function of the essence. That's why we say that's enlightened practice, because practice is focused on essential life. the essence of life. So that's why we have precepts and so forth, to guide us and focus us on this practice which is focused on our true nature, which is essence.

[72:20]

But you can't grasp essence. You know, even though we don't see the Absolute, the Absolute does exist within us. It is, we already are Buddha. And in some sense, it's already available to us. And certain traditions like the, some of the Vaishnavism traditions and the Dzogchen in Tibet, they really focus on that realm. They take that as a faith, it's really what faith is about. And hanging in that non-dual state, it sounds similar to what they're pointing at here. Well, yes. Which is a little bit different from the practice, which is a little bit more on the relative realm.

[73:21]

It's like starting right away from the absolute. Well, that's what we do. In the midst of the relative. Yes, of course. So, you know, there's a story about the… the student and the teacher, and somehow the student, they're talking about grasping emptiness, and the teacher said, well, how do you do that? And the student went, like that. And the teacher grabbed his nose and went, like that. There it is, there's emptiness. It's not the idea, you know. We can visualize and have an idea about it. We try to avoid that. Let go of your ideas. If you want to know emptiness, it's right there, here. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind.

[74:23]

But, I have a nose, as Tozan says, I have eyes. But, we don't have to go very far to get it. We don't have to go worry about it again. That's why the practice is the way it is. Kind of dumb sitting, you know. Simple activities. It's right here. It's right in exactly the place where you think that your life's just ordinary. That's why we emphasize ordinary life. Because you're wasting your, you think, well, there's something better than this, something more than this. something more, you know, interesting than this. That's why, you know, my teachers always say, Zen is not interesting. Not interesting. Yeah. I guess that's something I noticed when I was doing, as I was doing the reading, that when I was reading the difference between ancestral faith and the other doctrines, it felt to me like the descriptions of the ancestral faith

[75:33]

That's right. Yes. Yes. Exactly. You'd ask that a question? Yeah, that's a great question. But asking the question has already aroused that faith. You know, the answer is in the question. That's very basic. The answer is in the question.

[76:37]

And the place that we're trying to get to, we're already at, but we don't, it's selling water by the river, or, you know, standing in the middle of the stream, and where's the water? But we think there's something else. There's gotta be something else. There's gotta be something besides this. So that's why it all comes back to here. So Suzuki Roshi, I like to quote him, he says, you know, usually we think of the path or practice as something going away from ourself. You know, it's over there, going away, I'll go on that path. And we're leaving the place where we find it.

[77:42]

we're leaving our treasure to go look for our treasure. This is the story of the prodigal son. It's the story of a lot of stories, but the hardest place to be is where we are. There's something about, you know, our life that moves us. We keep moving, moving. So, it's okay to keep moving as long as wherever we are, that's where we are. That's it, too. But, you know, all this stuff is well known, but we forget it. We really forget it because we keep dreaming, you know. And the hard thing is to really just say, well, here it is. That's it, you know? When we say, we are Buddha, it means we are Buddha nature.

[78:43]

I think this is the important thing. If you say, I am Buddha, well, you visualize this image, you know, of a Buddha statue. That's not what that means. That you are Buddha already means that you are Buddha nature. Your being is Buddha nature. And Buddha nature is the being of all beings, the essence of all beings, the essence of mind. So you're already that. Otherwise, you couldn't want to be that. Why would you want to be that if you weren't already that? But we have this dream. That's why we have to be careful about images. But some practices encourage images and imaging and focusing on Buddha and all that.

[79:37]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ