Well, we've gone through, I think, most of the important ... most important part of the sutra, and there's the ending. But what I want to take up this evening is ... where the monk Fatat talks about the Lotus Sutra. This other version, he's called Fatah. Fatah. And It's section 42. Section 42 in the Dunhuang version.

[01:20]

And in Yampolsky. And in the Ming version, it's on page... in my book. It's 70, but I don't know what page it is in your book. Well, it's not 70, it's... actually... page 66. 65. And you're about 64? Yeah, 64. Biku Fatat? That's the way it starts. Or Biku Fatat? Depending on how you like to pronounce your A's. I'm 61. Yes, 61. She's 61. So this is about the meaning of sutras.

[02:28]

Did everybody have it? Have something? Bhikkhu Phatat, a native of Ung Chau, who joined the order at the early age of seven, used to recite the Saddharmapundarika Sutra, the Lotus of the Good Law, the Lotus Sutra, and when he came to pay homage, I don't know how old he was when he came to pay homage, but I'm sure he was older than seven, he failed to lower his head to the ground For his abbreviated courtesy, the patriarch reproved him, saying, if you object to lower your head to the ground, would it not be better to do away with salutation entirely? There must be something in your mind that makes you so puffed up. Tell me what you do in your daily exercise.

[03:39]

In other words, you must feel pretty like you know something. saying, you look like the kind of person to me that looks like you think you know something and you're going to tell me what it is. So he said, tell me, what do you do in your daily exercise? What's your practice? And he says, I recite the Sadharma Pundarika Sutra, replied Fattat. I have read the whole text 3,000 times. The other fellow had read the Lankavatara Sutra 1,000 times. This guy's read the Fat Tat, has read the Lotus Sutra 3,000 times. He started young. He started when he was seven years old, yeah. Had you grasped

[04:40]

Oh, had you grasped the meaning of the sutra, remarked the patriarch, you would not have assumed such a lofty bearing, even if you had read it 10,000 times. Had you grasped it, you would be treading the same path as mine. What you have accomplished has already made you conceited, and moreover, you do not seem to realize that this is wrong. So listen to my stanza. Since the object of ceremony is to curb arrogance, why did you fail to lower your head to the ground? To believe in a self is the source of sin, or that word is translated various ways, defilement. But to treat all attainment as void attains merit incomparable. So he says, he's really psyching him out. Since the object of ceremony is to curb arrogance, why did you fail to lower your head to the ground?

[05:47]

It's an interesting interpretation of the object of ceremony, to curb arrogance. In order to participate in something, In order to act the same as everybody else, you have to give up something. You have to give up your own unique sense of self. There are a few other places in the Sutra where monks come to greet him and they either act like this or they don't walk around.

[07:01]

In those days, they would walk around. In Buddha's time, if someone wanted to talk to a Buddha, they would walk around him three times and then kneel in front of him. and then ask their question or address them. So that ceremonious kind of way of acting shows a kind of sincerity and opens the space to create a serious dialogue So he says, since the object of ceremony is to curb arrogance, why did you fail to lower your head to the ground? And then he berates him, or he criticizes him for believing in a self. He's saying the reason why, of course, is because you believe in yourself as a self.

[08:09]

To believe in a self is the source of sin, but to treat all attainment as void attains merit incomparable. So, he's saying, you think you really attain something by reading the sutra 3,000 times. Since you've read the sutra 3,000 times, you must really have attained something, you think. If you could see all your attainment as void, as non-attainment, then you'd really have something to feel attained about. So the patriarch then asked for his name. And upon being told that his name was Fat Tat, meaning understanding the law, that's what his name means, he remarked, your name is Fat Tat, but you have not yet understood the law.

[09:10]

And he concluded by uttering another stanza, your name is Fat Tat, Diligently and steadily you recite the sutra. Lip repetition of the text goes by the pronunciation only, but he whose mind is enlightened by grasping the meaning is a bodhisattva indeed. On account of pratyaya, which means conditions producing phenomena, which may be traced to our past lives, I will explain this to you. If you only believe that Buddha speaks no words, then the Lotus Sutra will blossom in your mouth. You know, Buddha said, I've preached for 40 years, but I haven't said anything. Having heard this stanza, Phat Thot became remorseful, and he apologized to the patriarch. He added, hereafter, I will be humble and polite on all occasions.

[10:13]

Isn't that sweet? As I do not quite understand the meaning of the sutra I recite, I am doubtful as to its proper interpretation. With your profound knowledge and high wisdom, will you kindly give me a short explanation?" The patriarch replied, "'Fatat, the law is quite clear. It is only your mind that's not clear. The sutra is free from doubtful passages. It is only your mind that makes them doubtful. In reciting the sutra, do you know its principal object?" This is very wonderful. "'How can I know, sir?' replied Fatat, "'since I am so dull and stupid?' All I know is how to recite it word by word." So he's really remorseful, and he's kind of given up his inflated self, and so he's open to what the patriarch has to say.

[11:19]

Fat Tat recited the Sutra for the patriarch, but when he came to the chapter, because the patriarch couldn't read it. He was illiterate. So Fat Tat recited the Sutra, but when he came to the chapter entitled Parables, The patriarch stopped him. You know the chapter on parables in the Lotus Sutra? No? Well, there are several parables. Yeah, that's one of them. The famous one is the one about the children in the burning house. He lies to them. Yeah, the Buddha lies to them. He breaks the precept on purpose. That's a good case of breaking the precepts on purpose in order to keep them. Could you tell that story? Yes. I'll tell it as well as I can remember it.

[12:26]

There is three children. Well, the father has given the children... Let's see. The children are playing in a house, and the house is on fire. But the children don't know that the house is on fire. And because they're so distracted by their toys, they're so distracted by their toys that they don't know that the house is on fire. And so the father keeps telling them, please come out of the house. The house is on fire. And they don't pay any attention to him. So he devises a way to get them out of the house. And he says, I have this wonderful, he creates this vehicle. called a cart, and it's a deer vehicle and a goat vehicle and a bullock, I think those are the three. The deer vehicle, I think, he says, I have this deer vehicle for you and come and take a look.

[13:37]

Well, he says, I have this cart, you know, come out and take a look, you know, and So he devises three carts. One is the deer vehicle, the goat vehicle, and the bullock vehicle. And the goat vehicle, one or the other is the śrāvaka, and the other is the Pracekabuddha vehicle, and the other is the bodhisattva vehicle. The bullock. The bullock is the bodhisattva vehicle. and so in this way he lures them out of the house. But the deer vehicle and the goat vehicle are kind of expedient vehicles according to the Lotus Sutra. In other words, the Pracheka Buddha and the Sravaka vehicles are only provisional vehicles whereas the goat vehicle, I mean the Bullock vehicle is the Bodhisattva vehicle, and I can't remember exactly how it ends, but he lures them out into the Bullock vehicle, into the Bodhisattva vehicle, but he gives them these first, you know, one and the other and then the other, and the first two are provisional so that they will

[15:01]

be able to recognize the third one. So, this is kind of the gist of the parable. So, you know, the burning house is samsara, right? Our life of ignorance. So Phat Thach recited the sutra, but when he came to the chapter entitled Parables, the patriarch stopped him saying, the keynote of this sutra is to set forth the aim and the object of a Buddha's incarnation in this world. That's the object of the sutra. In other words, why a Buddha appears in the world. The sutra is about why a Buddha appears in the world. And though parables and illustrations are numerous in this book, none of them goes beyond this pivotal point.

[16:06]

Now what is that object? What is that aim? The sutra says it is for a soul object, a soul aim, verily a lofty object and a lofty aim that the Buddha appears in this world. Now that soul object, that soul aim, that lofty object, that lofty aim referred to is the site of Buddha knowledge. Common people attach themselves to objects without, and within they fall into the wrong idea of vacuity. When they are able to free themselves from attachment to objects, when in contact with objects, and to free themselves from the fallacious view of annihilation on the doctrine of the void, they will be free from delusions within and from illusions without. he who understands this and whose mind is thus enlightened is in an instant is said to have opened the eyes for the sight of Buddha knowledge. I'll talk about that a little bit. So Buddha appears, I've talked about this before, Buddha appears for a sole purpose, right?

[17:17]

Buddha has a purpose. And the purpose is, as he says, is the side of Buddha knowledge. So Buddha, this is called living by a vow rather than living by a karma. So the purpose of a Buddha is to, well a Buddha lives by vow and has a purpose in life, which is to enlighten beings, to enlighten himself and to enlighten beings. That's the purpose of his life. So Buddha, Shakyamuni, said when his purpose was over, he no longer has any reason to live and disappears. There's a common understanding about Buddhas that their sole reason for being alive is to do this.

[18:32]

But it seems a little strange because there's always something to do in that realm. And then he says, common people attach themselves to objects without, and within they fall into the wrong idea of vacuity. So in other words, common people attach themselves to objects of the senses, without. But then when it comes to within, they feel vacant. There's nothing inside. So what people end up depending on is outward circumstances and objects. And they don't depend on... When they look inside, they can't find anything.

[19:39]

It's like a person will live their life for 40 or 50 years making a lot of money and having a social life and doing various things and they come to a certain point in their life where they realize that they might die or they might get sick or something happens and then they realize they come to this crisis because they haven't taken care of the other side of their life. They haven't looked inside And you see people like that all the time looking for something. It's called midlife crisis or something like that. So when they are able to free themselves from attachment to objects, when in contact with objects, and to free themselves from the fallacious view of annihilation, on the doctrine of the void they will be free from delusions within and from illusions without.

[20:55]

In other words, when they're able to free themselves from objects, from the outer world, and to realize that what is empty is not void, In other words, it's not annihilation. So people think, not people think, but there's the view, two views in Buddhism. One is materialistic view, that the only thing that exists for the real world is just materialistic. And the other view is that when And there is no life after their deceased. Life begins and ends with the material world.

[22:00]

And there's no before or after. I think a lot of people feel that way. It's just one view, isn't it? Yeah, eternalism. That something goes on forever, right? That's the kind of permanence. You have eternal permanence. Eternalism and extinction or annihilation. Those are the two extreme views. So Buddhism is neither eternalistic or annihilationistic.

[23:06]

Middle path is neither eternalistic nor annihilationistic. So what does happen when you die? What does happen? Why don't you find out? Why ask me? I'm not going to. You're not going to die? Good. What's that? I can't answer. Well, you know, what does happen? Nothing happens. We think nothing happens. because the world of the senses is concerned with something and nothing. Because there's something, the opposite of something is nothing. And so we're caught in the realm of something and nothing. So it's neither something nor nothing.

[24:15]

In order to get to right understanding, you have to not fall into the duality of something and nothing. Suzuki Roshi used to say, Soto Zen, the secret of Soto Zen is Yes, but. No, but. So we tend to judge or speculate from the point of view of our limited understanding. There's something, and then there's nothing. But something is nothing, and nothing is something.

[25:27]

And yet nothing is nothing, and something is something. I can't imagine that all that, not just energy, That ongoing nexus or generator and receiver of karmic formations could just end because the breath stops in this body. I don't have any idea where it goes. What goes? You mean where it goes? I just can't imagine that that's it. That's good. Can't imagine where it goes.

[26:31]

A lot of people do imagine where it goes. And they make up some really good stories, too. I don't imagine where it goes. I cannot imagine where it goes. And I just don't. Because I know whatever it is I imagine is just what I imagine. So I can imagine whatever I want. So I don't usually imagine. But what I do know is that the only thing I can do is do this. If I do this, then that's taken care of. If I don't do this, well, maybe that's not taken care of so well. So if birth and death take place moment by moment, which they do, then what we do on this moment is what

[27:50]

determines the next moment. So all we can do is live our life completely or live our death completely. When we inhale, inhale completely. And when you exhale, exhale completely. We just call it life. But we can also call it death. We just call it life. But we can call it death. This is a wonderful death we're living. Please have a wonderful death. What about just calling it cause and effect?

[28:52]

So when we say, quote, unquote, I'm dying or I'm going to die, that actually is just a continuation of cause and effect. And we don't know what form it's going to take, but it's just more of the same like some other. That's a level. Well, you can call it cause and effect if you want. You can call it cause and effect if you want. It's a little intellectual for me, but it is cause and effect, of course. But that's always going on. Cause and effect is always going on. The result kind of is what we're talking about. If you talk about cause and effect, then you're talking about the process, and it's a continual process, right?

[29:58]

So instead of talking about life and death, how do you talk about process? Well, the way that we talk about process usually is by using a dualistic term, non-dualistically. So, life includes death. In a non-dualistic sense, when you say life, big life, it includes death. It includes the other side. And when you say death, it covers both life and death, it includes both sides. But we think of life and death dualistically. And so life becomes the opposite of death, death becomes the opposite of life.

[31:00]

And then we, you know, Dogon says life or birth, we translate using it birth rather than life. Birth and death. When there's birth, birth completely covers everything. And when there's death, death completely covers everything. But covering everything means that it includes the other side. And it's like the moon. When you see one side, the other side is covered. The other side is... not seen. So when we look at the moon, we only see one side, even when it's full. But the other side is still there, only it's dark. And there's no outline. There's nothing to distinguish, to be distinguished.

[32:04]

But nevertheless, the whole moon is there. So we say dark and light and night and day. Night and day are the same place. But when everything is light, things are revealed. And when everything is dark, everything disappears. But it's the same world. It's the same place. But we call it daytime in one circumstance and nighttime in another. But it's not like after we die, the body appears on the other side as a body, as our worldly body. That's not possible. But life is life, and death is life.

[33:13]

but our separate existence is no longer ... you know, each existence only lasts for a moment and so we identify ourself as this existence, that's how we identify ourselves with this me, this existence. But when we identify then we know where we're going and we know we're not so worried because we identify with life itself equally, with an equal footing with this life. So more and more it's a matter of letting go and allowing ourself to identify with life itself, with the whole process of life itself.

[34:24]

I'm wondering about what's your sense of the references to continuities of lifetimes and rebirth and continuity of karma over many births. Just having a lot of time, in a way. Having a lot of time? Having lifetimes. Well, as I say, there are many speculations, you know, and there is a kind of Mahayana Buddhist understanding that seems to be agreed upon within the Mahayana, whatever that is, within Mahayana thought. It's that there is something called action influence, that a person's karma, karmic activity, karmic action, at the point of release or death, depending on which way you want to express it,

[35:43]

There's an active part which is, I think it's termed ignorance, but it's not ignorance in the sense of stupidity. It's like a life force that is embodied in the action influence of like what Mary was talking about the energy of the certain parts of the energy of this particular existence it's embodied within that energy and that particular blind energy, blind force, seeks another birth and somehow finds its next parent or set of parents.

[37:00]

It's kind of an elaborate theory, but it is just a theory and maybe sees these two people copulating and puts itself in there, you know, somehow hoping to regain another birth and competing with maybe a couple of million others. Did you ever see that Woody Allen movie? It's this big rocket ship or something inside the male organ. And all these guys are dressed up as sperm, you know, waiting to get into the cannon, you know, to get shot out into space, into the void. It's great.

[38:02]

And Woody, he's what? He's afraid to go. He's afraid to go. I'm not sure what's up there. He actually said he doesn't want to be there when it happens. That's what he said about death. He's not afraid of death. So anyway, Buddhists have a lot of theories. And Woody Allen writes them out. So they have a lot of theories about what happens. But it's interesting. I've talked with plenty of Tibetan Buddhists. Some of them think it's central to being a Buddhist, to believe in all this. Right. I've had problems with that, but I'm not articulate enough.

[39:05]

Yes, we all have problems with that. But I think that the Tibetans, because of the law of cause and effect, it logically carries over that the effects continue, which is feasible, but what it is that continues One theory is that it's the alaya vijnana which contains all the seeds and impressions that continues, and the seventh consciousness which is the ego. See, because the seven consciousness keeps creating karma, the ego consciousness continues to create karma, this one, seven, which when it becomes equality wisdom, when all of these vijnanas turn and we speak of wisdom instead of…

[40:27]

vijnana or consciousnesses that's what we the substitute or it's the conditioned I or you know and when they turn and transform into the wisdoms the wisdom takes the place of ego and then the karma consciousness stops creating energy that continues to be transformed into other lives or rebirths. But the seventh consciousness keeps creating karma usually and that energy continues and the alaya energy continues. And that's what gets carried into the next transformation, whatever that transformation is.

[41:42]

So there's a lot of speculation as to what the transformation is. It's easy to say that the energy continues, because energy does continue, but what it transforms into, that's harder to understand. What would Nagarjuna think of the Laya Vijnana theory? Well, he was a Madhyamaka. The Laya Vijnana, I think, is more the area of the... I think he came too soon. Vasubandhu and Asanga, the brothers, kind of developed that theory after Nagarjuna. Well that's interesting. Dogen says, once one dies, one does not come back again.

[42:44]

In the Genjo Koan, one does not return again. I don't know what he means by that exactly. Sounds un-Buddhist in a way. And so I'm not sure exactly what he means by one does not return again. I think he means one does not return as this person. Now, the Tibetans seem to have the most extreme view of reincarnation, I think, of the Buddhists. But not all Buddhists believe in the same way that the Tibetans do and the Tibetans seem to believe that literally in reincarnation that this person gets born in another body or the action influence is embodied in another person and then they find that person and it's the Karmapa or the Dalai Lama or whatever, some Lama or some other body

[43:57]

person and they're just into that you know and when I think about that I think how comfortable it would be to just let myself believe that you know and then I could create a world view and go along with it and it would be comfortable and you know my world view would be solved but I can't do that somehow I can't allow myself to go with that kind of comfortable It's too comfortable, because it... Yeah. Yeah, it seems too comfortable to me also, but in my own experience, it's something like it. It doesn't have to be a dull particular sound, like you said, to somebody. I can't imagine what it would be like. Sort of general consideration of it, in my experience, is a great motivator, an incredible motivator.

[44:58]

And like you were talking about identifying with the process, just identifying with life. Somehow, the view, I mean this is also just a view, that there's only one life, that's also a view. And it's easy to fall into one or the other when you think about it, but if I just fall into the one, there's just one life, it's very difficult for me to kind of sum it up, the motivation to really just identify with life, moment after moment, And when I take a look, it really is. I don't know why. It's almost like, well, this life isn't that. And this sort of connects to what Tom was talking about, Tibetan Buddhists. It's essential for them to consider samsara as a motivating sort of, it compels you to really identify with this moment. and thereby to be able to stand, to get through the potentially infinite births and deaths.

[46:01]

If you don't come out of birth and you don't go into death, the satsara isn't so great. I couldn't get through this life. Why bother? Why bother with life? Do you understand? So there's this tremendous motivation. The power. Yes, true. There is. The context. Right. branches back there that we're not really born Well, you know, yeah. and dressed up something that goes on that you can rely on.

[47:31]

It's just a few more subtle things. And it sounds like the old Atman or Brahman is back, a new form of Buddhism. It sounds like there's something in the human, what we call human nature, that needs And that's really all I know. And it's always half dark the way I turn my head. Yeah. It's very hard to stay with the bare, the bareness of life, you know? And we always want something to make us, you know, something that we can, and it's really hard to stay with just the bare bones. I have some concern about dying and I'm trying to find some way that it's comfortable for me to think about death, but you were saying about dying and being open to life, it seems to me that

[48:43]

Well, I agree with what you say, but there's something about just another moment. It was a big moment. It's kind of critical. But it's still within life. A big life. It's just another step, but that just, if it's just another step, just this step, then I think that's what Dogged means about birth and death. Just this life, just this step, completely. It's something I've been thinking about a lot.

[50:04]

It's something that I call morbidity. How we're so obsessed with the idea of dying that we never really do anything. You know, just like it's so obsessed with like, you know, all these things have happened to me in my life and, you know, this happened and then this person did this. And, you know, so caught up in this whole story of the way we're dead already. It's expensive, I get, of this kind of living death. where there's sort of morbid consciousness or victim consciousness that just never sort of does anything. You know, there's not any sort of actual anything being experienced at all because it's all being seen through the eyes of I'm going to die, rather than I'm alive. I think about my own way of getting caught up in ideas about suicide, or controlling my death, and how that's been something that comes up in my life a lot, and trying to see it instead as this sort of way of just going deeper into the question of the fact that I'm alive, rather than that it's getting caught up in this

[51:17]

this morbidness, I guess that's the word that keeps coming to my mind. I think it's a control sort of tactic, that you know you're going to die, there's no question about it, and so you kind of try to control it by thinking, okay, well, you know, if I just keep thinking and looking at my whole life in terms of when I'm going to die, then I'm, you know, I've got something to hold on to. How do you know that's a fact? That you're alive? How do you do that? Well, see, that's actually the morbidity, is to start asking questions about what we're doing. I mean, you know, if you sort of ponder, you know, am I alive or dead, am I alive or dead? I mean, you can just go around and around and around and you might as well be dead, right? Because you're never alive, you're never doing anything, except wondering when you're going to die and blah, blah, blah, and I'm not.

[52:25]

And that's the sort of process that I'm in, is kind of like, You never can do anything, because it's always going to be faced with, you know, something. Well, that's, you're talking about some kind of obsession with an idea. No. I'm talking about an assumption that I hear behind this, that you're either alive or dead, that there's already something called life and death. Well, I think that's an assumption, too, because I've actually seen people die, and I've never seen them again. So I figure there must be something, you know. You see them as an object, and you have an experience that they represent. You only see death as an object, or do you not? I don't know. I think you're just trying to... I feel, okay, that you're just trying to avoid something. The kind of dichotomy that she sees voiced all the time. It's a lot of fun.

[53:32]

When we think about this, we can't do anything until we realize that we're alive and we can do something. I'd just like to ask, what do we do then? Okay, we assume we're alive. Now what do we do? I think it actually gives you the freedom to do things. In other words, well, it's... It's hard to explain, but let's see if I can. What I think it actually gives you the ability to do is, if I may say this, actually be yourself. All of the potentialities that are the combination of who you are actually become true, rather than caught up And it's more of an idea of changing them, or making them better, so that by the time you die, you've accomplished something and left something. You know, and all this kind of stuff that we try to avoid this kind of difficult death by creating something to leave. You know, it's all, that's what it's like.

[54:33]

Instead of being caught up with thinking that we should leave something behind, we should just do that something and leave something behind. No, no, no, just actually be there. Oh, jeez, it's so funny how hard it is to explain. Don't you agree that we do spend an awful lot of time sort of carrying out some strategies of relating to this invisibility, this perceived invisibility. So free us from these strategies. But eventually, I find that I get bored with it, and I, and myself, despite myself, like, I can't help being myself after I've gotten tired of it. I think boredom is very important in all that, actually. You know? Because I love getting bored, but I get tired of it, and I move on to picking my nose or something. I think that, like, For a lot of years, just like death kind of haunted me, you know, I was like, I would always kind of deny it was going to happen to me.

[55:47]

I always said, well, I mean, I knew this was going to happen, some intellectual plane, you know, but I kind of go, well, I'm going to die. And kind of some of the boys said, no, you're not, you know. It's like, you know, as soon as I really accepted the fact that, yes, for this particular existence, it's going to do something else and not come back, you know, I was really free to live my life and not worry about it, you know. I mean, it wasn't morbidity, you know, in that case. It actually freed me to live right now instead of worried about this thing that is going to happen as far as I can see to everybody here, you know. There's nobody to kick my ass. I was going to ask Wendy if maybe, maybe do you mean that it's just I don't know. That doesn't sound like the way I would say it, so I'm not quite sure.

[56:51]

It seemed to me that you were addressing a question that hadn't been stated. Okay. So, somehow it felt to me like it was your own question that you were addressing. Well, we were talking about whether, you know, you die and then continue on to another life. And so, you know, this obsession with our death, and what's going to happen to us when we die, this obsession, obsession, obsession with morbidity is what I'm talking about. And then it kind of got... Well, it can be morbid, or it can be obsessive. I don't think we were talking about it being obsessive. I just think we were talking about it. You know what I mean? I don't think we were getting obsessive. Well, I think it has a tendency to get sort of morbid. That's all I was saying. And then it seems to get a little bit more expansive. What is morbid? Well, I think morbid is the sort of fun thing that we do with sort of this idea that we're going to die and how scary it is and how wonderful in a sense it is.

[58:05]

that we just, I don't know, it's sort of this, like, caught in our own importance. And the fact that, you know, our dying is so important. Well, I think our dying is important to each one of us. Yeah, I know. And to you too. Yeah. But I don't think that's morbid. It's just looking at something rather than avoiding it. Well, really, I don't really expect anyone here to care about what I'm saying, but what we were talking about brought up this thought that I had about the way I have sort of talked about my life and the way I often hear people talking about their lives in this way that just feels so morbid to me. And this whole idea of how we were talking about karma reminded me of God. It's sort of birth and death and how long we live and what's going to happen to us when we die, where we were before we were born.

[59:14]

It just starts to make, you know, it just sort of feels limiting. It feels morbid. It feels like, you know... Death feels limiting? No, the discussion, you know, of where you go and where you were before. I don't know. I was reading many years ago about how much of our time is spent thinking about dwelling on certain things. And what we dwell on is sex, issues, you know, mates and death. Those are these two top things. Taxes. Anyway, my thought on that. Anyway, my thought on that is that the anxiety behind that and the suffering that it causes, and just like to be in the moment.

[60:18]

It's like before I moved here I had a lot of anxiety about that until it was driving me crazy, until I got here and just slowed down. And now it's like, it's like I never could get enough of the stuff out there. Enough, enough, enough. And here I feel like something's getting fed, and all those appetites are going away. It's like I get up in the morning and I'm not worrying about death so much. It's not freaking me out. I'm not like every day just going around like this. It's like I get up today and go, hey, this might be the last day. Let's do it. Let's try to love. Let's try to relax. Let's try to do each thing and stay right here and just like really just savor every little movement and everything. Yeah, I agree. And I also think that we should be able to talk about this fact of life. without getting upset. That's what I think. I think we should be able to talk about this without it upsetting us. That's, to me, that's how being able to handle our life, you know.

[61:23]

So, that's my feeling anyway. Did this without being upset about it include talking about Everybody has some fear that comes up with it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be such a fearsome subject. And by addressing it, Addressing this subject informs us about how to live our life. To live our life without addressing this subject is real ignorance, I think. Ignorance.

[62:27]

We didn't think that's what I was saying. I feel a little fear there. No, I have some. You don't? No, I'm not saying I don't have any. Should we go on? Where do we go after that? Where does the one reach in? So common people, foolish common people, attach themselves to objects without, and within they fall into the wrong idea of vacuity, meaning nothing. When they are able to free themselves from attachment to objects, when in contact with objects, and to free themselves from fallacious view of annihilation and the doctrine of void, they will be free from delusions within and from illusions without.

[63:44]

And one who understands this and whose mind is thus enlightened in an instant is said to have opened the eyes for the sight of Buddha-knowledge. So the word Buddha is the equivalent to enlightenment. which may be dealt with, as in the Sutra, under four heads, headings. To open the eye for the sight of enlightenment knowledge, to show the sight of enlightenment knowledge, to awake to the sight of enlightenment knowledge, to be firmly established in the enlightenment knowledge. Then he said, should we be able, upon being taught, to grasp and understand thoroughly the teaching of enlightenment knowledge, then our inherent quality or true nature, that is the enlightenment knowledge, would have an opportunity to manifest itself. You should not misinterpret the text and come to the conclusion that Buddha knowledge is something special to Buddha and not common to us all because you happen to find in the sutra, in this passage,

[64:50]

to open the eyes for the sight of Buddha knowledge, to show the sight of Buddha knowledge, etc. Such a misinterpretation would amount to slandering Buddha and blaspheming the sutra. Since he is a Buddha, he is already in possession of this enlightenment knowledge and there is no occasion for him to open his eyes for it. You should therefore accept the interpretation that Buddha knowledge is the Buddha knowledge of your own mind and not that of any other Buddha." So he keeps coming back to this over and over again. Not talking about some others, but some big Buddha knowledge, but your Buddha knowledge. Being infatuated by sense objects, and thereby shutting themselves from their own light, all sentient beings, tormented by outer circumstances and inner vexations, act voluntarily as slaves to their own desires. Being pulled around by the nose, by our own desires. Seeing this, our Lord Buddha had to rise from his samadhi in order to exhort them with earnest preaching of various kinds to suppress, suppress, I don't like the word suppress, so I like unhitch, to unhitch their desires and refrain from seeking happiness from without.

[66:12]

We talked about that, Dayan talked about that yesterday. Refrain from seeking happiness from without. so that they might become the equals of Buddha. For this reason, the sutra says, to open the eyes for the sight of Buddha-knowledge, etc. So, happiness is not a thing. There's no thing that's happiness. You can't find one, even though, you know, maybe the closest thing is a little puppy. He doesn't bite you. No, well, even when they bite, they're okay. But happiness is the result of something. You can't buy it. You can't make it. It's the result of something. And on its more superficial levels, it comes and goes. But on a very deep level, it's permanent.

[67:17]

in the sense that it's not dependent on conditions. True happiness is not dependent on conditions. So, things may go this way and then they go that way, but there's a basic joy or basic happiness that an enlightened person has that's not disturbed by circumstances, even though you may feel terrible. I advise people constantly to open their eyes for the Buddha knowledge within their mind. But in their perversity, they commit sins. I don't like to use the word, but I will, since it's here, under delusion and ignorance. They are kind in words, but wicked in mind. They are greedy, malignant, jealous, crooked, flattering, egotistic, offensive to people, and destructive to inanimate objects.

[68:19]

The first ecologist. So in Roshi, I said, I copied something out of his book, the Soyan Roku, which is very good. And, you know, the Arhats have the six supernatural powers, clairvoyance, and clairaudience, being able to travel through the air, and all these supernatural powers that the Indians, the Indian Siddhas, that are common to most Indian Siddhas. But he says, entering the realm of form without being diluted by form. The true six supernatural powers are entering the realm of form without being diluted by form, entering the realm of sounds without being diluted by sounds, entering the realm of smell without being diluted by smells, entering the realm of taste without being diluted by taste,

[69:48]

entering the realm of touch without being diluted by touch and entering the realm of mental formations without being diluted by mental formations are the six supernatural powers of a Buddhist. Is he saying that the six supernatural powers of a Buddhist are not the six supernatural powers? What the six unsupernatural powers are? It's funny, it sounds like a poem. It's not really a commentary on what the six supernatural powers are or not. No, it's not. It's saying these are the real supernatural powers that are not at all supernatural. If you read the Buddhist literature, you'll run across the six powers of the Arhats. And they're super miraculous powers, seedies.

[70:51]

And of course we don't believe in them. I mean, Zen people don't believe in them. It's like... You know, like a Zen story, the Zen story is about the Zen master is walking with this Taoist or some kind of sage who walks across the water. They come to the stream and he walks across the water. Come on, you know. And the Zen master lifts up his robe and walks across the stream on the ground. He says... I can't remember what he says, but... He says, don't show off. What? Don't show off. Yes, don't show off or something like that. Or just let's face it, if I'd known you were like that, I wouldn't... If I'd known you were a guy like that, I wouldn't have walked in. That's right. I would have broken both your legs. That's right. So anyway, I... you should...

[71:55]

Therefore, from moment to moment, open your eyes, not for common people knowledge, but for Buddha knowledge, which is super mundane, while the former is worldly. On the other hand, if you stick to the arbitrary concept that mere recitation of the sutra is a daily exercise, as a daily exercise is good enough, then you are infatuated like the yak by its own tail. Yaks are known to have a very high opinion of their own tails. It is a footnote. It is. Fattat then said, If that is so, we have only to know the meaning of the sutra, and there would be no necessity for us to recite it. Is that right, sir? There is nothing wrong in the sutra, replied the patriarch, so that you should refrain from reciting it. Whether sutra recitation will enlighten you or not, or benefit you or not, all depends on you. And he who recites the sutra with the tongue and puts its teaching into actual practice with his mind, turns around the sutra.

[72:59]

This is the crux of this whole passage, right? And he who recites it without putting it into practice is turned around by the sutra. Listen to my stanza. When our mind is under delusion, the sadharma pundarika turns us around. But with an enlightened mind, we turn around the sutra instead. To recite the sutra for a considerable time without knowing its principal object indicates that you are a stranger to its meaning. The correct way to recite the sutra is without holding any arbitrary belief. I think that's good. The way to understand birth and death is without holding any arbitrary belief. Otherwise, it is wrong. One who is above affirmative and negative rides permanently in the white bullet cart, that is, the vehicle of the Buddha. One who is above affirmative and negative. That has a lot of connotations, but one good connotation means grasping and aversion.

[74:10]

but also means is and is not. Affirmative and negative is and is not. Birth and death. Birth and death, that's right. So having heard this stanza, Fat Top was anointed and moved to tears. It is quite true, he exclaimed, that heretofore I was unable to turn around the sutra. It was rather the sutra that turned me around. He then raised another point. The sutra says, from Shravakas, which are disciples, up to Bodhisattvas, even if they were to speculate with combined efforts, they would be unable to comprehend the Buddha knowledge. But you, sir, give me to understand that if an ordinary person realizes his own mind, he is said to have attained the Buddha knowledge. I am afraid, sir, that with the exception of those gifted with superior mental dispositions, others may doubt your remarks. Furthermore, three kinds of carts are mentioned in the sutra, namely, carts yoked with goats, the vehicle of the Sravakas, carts yoked with deer, the vehicle of the Pracheka Buddhas, and carts yoked with bullocks, the vehicle of the Bodhisattvas.

[75:29]

How are these to be distinguished from the white bullock carts?" The patriarch replied, "'The sutra is quite plain on this point. It is you who misunderstand it. The reason why Sravakas, Pracheka Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas cannot comprehend the Buddha knowledge is because they speculate on it. They may combine their efforts to speculate, but the more they speculate, the farther they are from the truth. It was to ordinary men, not to other Buddhas, that Buddha Gautama preached this sutra. As for those who could not accept the doctrine, he expounded, he let them leave the assembly." You know, there's this famous part of the Lotus Sutra. where a Buddha was talking about that these ashramakas and Prajagabuddhas were only expediently, had not actually reached nirvana, but they thought they had, through their expedient vehicles.

[76:37]

Buddha said, I'm sorry, but there's more to go. You guys have not yet really reached it. And 500 of the arhats got very indignant, and they got up and left the assembly. Very famous story. Is that what Pratyekabuddha is, arhats? No, well, arhat, Buddha was an arhat as well. Arhat is one who is worthy of receiving offerings. but an enlightened disciple. What is the Pratyekabuddha? Pratyekabuddha is a self-enlightened Buddha, simply speaking. One who has realization for themselves, but they don't communicate it to others. And disciples are, shravakas are people who study Buddha's followers, but they're basically, they study the way, but that is kind of the meaning.

[77:53]

They don't really engage in true practice, but they are tuned in. They're tuned in to Buddhism. And so the reason why Sravaka is Pracheka Buddhism is he also, you know, Bodhisattvas are also put down on another level. And Bodhisattvas cannot comprehend the Buddha knowledge is because they speculate on it. They may combine their efforts to speculate, but the more they speculate, the farther they are from the truth. It was to ordinary people, not to other Buddhas, that Buddha Gautama preached this sutra. As for those who could not accept the doctrine he expounded, he let them leave the assembly. That's the 500 Arhats. You did not seem to know that since we are already riding in the white bullet cart, the vehicle of Buddhas, there is no necessity for us to go out to look for the other three vehicles. Moreover, the sutra tells you plainly that there is only the Buddha vehicle,

[78:57]

and that there are no other vehicles such as the second and third. Well, this is kind of like Mahayana propaganda. If for the sake of this sole vehicle that Buddha had to preach to us with innumerable skillful devices, using various reasons and arguments, parables and illustrations, etc., so why can you not understand that the other three vehicles are makeshifts for the past only, while the sole vehicle, the Buddha vehicle, is the ultimate means meant for the present? See, the thing is that there was a time when, for the Pracheka Buddhas and the Arhats, the Arhats could not, didn't feel that they saw Buddha as somebody out there, an ideal. And they could never be Buddhas, they could only be Arhats. So this kind of Mahayana understanding which is expressed in the Lotus Sutra says, you have the Buddha nature.

[80:01]

In the past, the Arhat ideal was what Buddhists strove for. But Arhat, after the Mahayana came along, saying that everyone has the Buddha nature and you are Buddha, or you have the potential as Buddha. You are not different from Buddha. Then the arhat idea kind of faded away. But arhats are not bad, you know. It's just that the shift, that emphasis changed to the Buddha vehicle rather than the Pratyekabuddha vehicle or the arhat, you know, the Sravaka vehicle. So he's selling the Buddha vehicle, you know, as expressed in the Lotus Sutra. that a Buddha... And see, in the Lotus Sutra, Buddha gives this prediction, you know, to his disciples, that in the future you will become a Buddha named so-and-so, and you will become a Buddha named so-and-so, you know.

[81:15]

So he's telling people, his disciples, that they actually will reach Buddhahood. But the Arhats never had that ideal, One would reach Buddhahood. They would reach Arhathood. And Buddha was up here. But the notion of Buddha nature changed the emphasis. Do you want to say something, Ralph? Well, it doesn't matter. It's really self-propaganda. It seems to me just to be a Mahayana idea of what an Arhat was. If you really read the Pali, some of the Pali sutras, It's really beautiful, actually. I don't know why they use different words, Buddha and Arhat. I mean, the Buddha did this on his own. But then when you get this feeling, when you read these stories of the Buddha talking to someone, and then all of a sudden you realize, oh, this person understands. And there's a really wonderful spirit of equality there. And there's really no sense of, oh, I'm the Buddha. You're just an Arhat. It's like, oh, we both understand.

[82:16]

Now let's go out and walk in the world. But there are different names. One's an Arhat. One's a Buddha. I don't know why. But there's really not this sense of a big difference. Well, I think what you say is right, but there was the idea of Buddha nature. I think that when you read the sutra, that's right. But I think that in the distant past, you know, something happened that made this shift. And so, I don't know what all that was exactly, but it's also so. that the conception was that this is as far as you can go. And so, see, the sutra teaches you to dispense with the makeshifts and resort to the ultimate, is what he says. Having resorted to the ultimate, you will find that even the name ultimate disappears.

[83:21]

You should appreciate that you are the sole owner of these valuables and that they are entirely subject to your disposal. When you are free from the arbitrary conception that they are the fathers or the sons, or that they are at so-and-so's disposal, you may be said to have learned the right way to recite the Sutra. In that case, from kalpa to kalpa, the Sutra will be in your hand, and from morning to night, you will be reciting the Sutra all the time. Something else that Son Roshi says that I thought was nice is he says, each one of us has a life story. the living sutra of each one. So, being thus awakened, I'll just finish, Phat Thach praised the ancestor, the patriarch, in a transport of great joy with the following stanza. The delusion that I have attained great merits by reciting the sutra 3,000 times over is all dispelled by an utterance of the master Tsau Khe, He who has not understood the object of a Buddha's incarnation in this world is unable to suppress the wild passions accumulated in many lives.

[84:32]

The three vehicles yoked by goat, deer, and bullock, respectively, are makeshifts only, while the three stages, preliminary, intermediate, and final, in which the orthodox dharma is expounded, are well set out indeed. How few appreciate that within the burning house itself, that is mundane existence, the king of dharma is to be found. So, our salvation is within ourself, within the burning house. The patriarch then told him that thenceforth he might call himself a sutra reciting bhikkhu. After that interview, Phat-That was able to grasp the profound meaning of Buddhism, yet he continued to recite the sutra as before.

[85:28]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ