kind of like, if you look at the history of religious practices, every religious practice has split-offs. In other words, some people go this way, and some people go that way. And the people who go this way criticize the people who go that way. People who go that way criticize the people who go this way. So in that spirit is the way I understand Hinayana and Mahayana. The people who criticize the term Hinayana say, well, the Mahayana puffs themselves up and thinks we have the right way, right? Well, the so-called Hinayana does the same thing. So ours is the right way, right? So that's true. Every way is the right way. So if people say, if this is the right way, then that must be the wrong way. So we split up things into right and wrong. And when we split up things into right and wrong, we have big problems.

[01:03]

We have criticism, which leads to dissension, which leads to mob action. People kill each other over these little things, right? So we have to respect all the different practices. And in our Soto school, we do respect the practice of the Shravakas. even though there's criticism of shravaka being, you know, if you say, well, the shravaka, as the history says, well, the Mahayana says that the shravakas, which were basically arhats, had an inferior practice. And then people stick to that understanding as the correct understanding. But Hinayana, in my understanding, does not apply to any particular school of Buddhism, although people apply it to various schools of Buddhism, like the school of the elders, which is one of the historical schools that still remains from Buddha's time.

[02:19]

Hinayana to me means not the small idea, but the school that has a very narrow path. Hinayana meaning a very narrow path. You don't step outside of this prescribed narrow path. Mahayana is more open and generous in their understanding, meaning the wider acceptance of how we practice. And our school includes, our Mahayana school includes Hinayana practice. And we, because as Suzuki Roshi always said, our practice is Mahayana practice with a Theravada practice with a Mahayana understanding or Mahayana mind. So it's not like, you know, we respect that because it's our practice too.

[03:28]

We have elements of narrow practice, which is a monastic practice. but our lay practice is much more inclusive, which means it's a more open, innovative, and progressive way to practice. If in our practices, we just stick to certain ancient way, then in a changing world, the ever-changing world, then there's something missing. So, one of the problems and one of the wonderful things at the same time is that the ancient way preserves the root, but at the same time it doesn't allow for innovations or for the time and place in which

[04:36]

practice takes place. So we cannot practice exactly the same way as the people in India 2,500 years ago practiced, right? It's possible, but it's a kind of anomaly. So we have to innovate, and it doesn't mean we have to give in to the culture, but we have to be able to go with the culture. If you give in to the culture, then the culture is based on fads and largely desire. So, the thing that's wonderful about the ancient way is that it preserves the true practice. The thing that's not so wonderful about it is that it doesn't include every what it needs to include. The Mahayana has the problem of also practicing the ancient way, but its problem is being so diffuse that it easily comes apart.

[05:49]

So one is very strict in following a narrow path, and the other one is very strict in following the wider path. That's my understanding. So, you know, in the Jewish tradition, there's the conservative, the orthodox conservative, which is a little bit like Buddhism, actually. And then there's the conservative. I mean, the, what is the other? reform, right, which is a bit more open and more merging with the culture. And they criticize each other, you know. If you go to Israel, which I haven't been to, but what I've heard is that the Orthodox really holds the reform school down from, you know,

[06:56]

In the Orthodox, at least back in the 19th century, and I think today too, if your child married somebody outside of the tradition, you would perform a funeral ceremony for them. Well, there are varieties. There are varieties, yes, but that's one of the varieties. Yes, I'm not saying… That's an example of one extreme way, yes. You know, all the schools criticize each other in some way. It's bound to happen. If you're a Protestant in Ireland, you hate the Catholics and the Catholics hate the Protestants and they have big marches and they try to avoid each other or go through each other's property and get the tomatoes and eggs, right? So why did I do that? You know, it's crazy. But it is totally crazy. We have to be able to respect all the various ways, even if we don't believe in them.

[08:02]

My way is the best and your way is also the best. Everything is the best, even if it's the worst. And it's all the worst as well. If we think things are only the best and we avoid seeing the other side, which is the worst, This is one of the problems we have, and it's one of the problems we have with rules and precepts, because rules and precepts are not… There are rules within precepts, but precepts are not just rules. Precepts, according to Suzuki Roshi and our Soto school, at some points in history. You can make up rules, but we have to be careful that the rules we make up also have another side.

[09:11]

If you say don't kill, that's the first precept. A disciple of the Buddha does not kill. But it's impossible not to kill. We're killing all the time. And at the same time, there's no such thing as killing. But if you think there's no such thing as killing, that's also wrong. It's right, and it's also wrong. To say don't kill is right, but it's also wrong. And it's also neither right nor wrong. We think in these very narrow ways. And we think in these very narrow ways because they fit into our desire to be positive. Suzuki Roshi used to say, it's not always so. It's not always so means yes, but.

[10:17]

The secret of Soto Zen is yes, but. Although that's right, but. And we can be very positive about what's right and what's wrong. And there are certain circumstances in which this is right and that's wrong. Nevertheless, there's always another side within our dualistic world. Because our dualistic world is yes and no, right and wrong. And that's why we have precepts. So, I think that you could say Hinayana means the letter of the law. It's the rules of how you conduct yourself, and if you don't conduct yourself in a certain way, you know, there are consequences. Whether there are real consequences or not is one thing, but so on one side there, the consequences of breaking rules,

[11:22]

And on the other side is the spirit of the rules. Why do we have rules? Just to have rules? No, we have rules in order to give us a path, you know, so that we don't make mistakes, but the problem with that is that it doesn't cover every situation. The rules do not cover every situation. You can't make rules that cover every situation. So the spirit of the law and the letter of the law are the two sides. So our practice, what Suzuki Roshi tried to bring out in our practice was the spirit. of the law rather than the letter of the law, although the letter of the law is important as well. So it's not one or the other. What I hear, I think, is also in a case we would say, oh, for example, this is not the right, this is the wrong thing to do. In that case, it's not also the right thing to do, but the next time it may be the right thing to do.

[12:29]

Is that what you're saying? Well, that's also so. That's also so. This example that I always give is that don't tell a lie, right? But there are times when we have to tell a lie in order to tell the truth. In order to express the truth, we have to tell a lie. That's common. And the example, the stereotypical example is You're hiding somebody from the Nazis in your closet. And now they knock on the door and, well, George Washington cut down the cherry tree. So you have to say, no, I didn't. There's nobody here but me. That's a lie to tell the truth. But it's a different truth than your You're creating a lie in order to protect somebody, but if you just say, oh yeah, he's in the closet, I cannot tell a lie, that's not precepts.

[13:41]

So there are always examples like that all the time. So that's like stepping outside of the letter in order to express the spirit. Would you say that the Heart Sutra is a kind of a response to the precepts, to Theravada precepts? Well, it's a response to... I don't like to point to any particular school. It's a response to... Hinayana, you know, also means... In a way, yes, you can say the Theravada school, it's a response to the understanding that, the Heart Sutra goes like this, O Shariputra, in the long version of the Heart Sutra, there's an assembly.

[14:53]

and Shakyamuni Buddha is there, and Avalokiteshvara is there, and Shariputra is also there. So, Shariputra asks the Buddha, how does one practice Prajnaparamita? And the Buddha turns to his disciple, which is his compassionate self, actually. He says, why don't you explain it to him, Avalokiteshvara? So Avalokiteshvara says, O Shariputra, that's how the Heart Sutra starts. O Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. So there's a thing about... Dharmas, the various schools, there were some schools which were very prominent about the time of the, well, various schools, the 18 schools each had their own ideas about things, right?

[16:18]

And so it basically is addressed to the various schools, not just to the Theravadins. that they thought that dharmas were real. Atman and dharmas. Atman is absolute. Dharmas is relative. And everyone knows that Atman is not dualistic. the oneness of things, not dualistic. But dharmas, most of the schools thought that, especially in Kashmir, they thought that, the Sarvastivadins thought dharmas are real, even though everything is changing, but the dharmas themselves are real.

[17:22]

And the Heart Sutra is challenging that by saying, even the dharmas are not real. There is no reality to, no permanent reality to anything. That's what the Heart Sutra is saying. All dharmas are marked with emptiness, rather than all dharmas are eternal. real, right? All dharmas are marked with emptiness, all shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. And then it talks about the skandhas. How would you translate dharma and skandha for someone who's never heard the term before? Well I'm sure everybody here has heard dharmas and skandhas, but we'll do that. Skandha are the five categories. Form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness.

[18:31]

Dharmas are the constituents of the skandhas. So there are the dharmas which belong to those categories. Everything, the human, not so much about… dharmas have various meanings. Dharma with a capital D means Buddhist teaching or reality of Buddhist teaching. Dharmas with a small d means things. And specifically, we're talking about in Buddhism, the dharmas of our physical, psychophysical being. The dharmas that are the constituents that make up a person. All of the elements that make up a person. And the skandhas are the categories.

[19:33]

So form is the category which takes in all, aspects of form, fingers, the blood, you know, whatever. And then feelings take in to consider, are about physical feelings and emotional, psychic feelings. Perceptions is about, are the dharmas of perception. there has to be a subject, an organ, and consciousness in order for, the organ and consciousness, in order, there has to be an object and a subject in order for consciousness to arise. If those two are not present, consciousness doesn't arise. So, and then there's the skanda of

[20:37]

Mental formations, which means karmic formations, basically. The 52 karmic formations which create, or formations which create karma. Mental formations. Thoughts, in other words. And then there's consciousness, the skanda of consciousness, which pertains to all the elements of consciousness. Okay. So I don't wanna go much further with that, but the dharmas are the constituents. So all dharmas are marked with emptiness. Mark means it's constituent, what it is that characterizes it. So the mark of fire is heat. The mark of water is wet. The mark of Earth is solid. The mark of space is ethereal, according to the old way of thinking.

[21:49]

So that's the mark. So the mark of a dharma, any dharma, whatever it is, is emptiness, so that means all things, all dharmas are empty of their own being. That's the Heart Sutra. All dharmas are empty in their own being, which means that nothing exists by itself, everything exists in relation to everything else. Every dharma, every thing in this universe exists, nothing exists independently, except that we feel independent. We all feel our independence, the Declaration of Independence. It should be the Declaration of Independency because it's somewhere in between dependent and independent. We feel as a human that we're independent.

[22:51]

I'm independent from you. You're independent from me, we're all independent from each other, and at the same time, we're all dependent on each other. We're all dependent on, we can't escape from this universe, because we're the nerves and the blood of the universe. We're totally tied to it, but you can't see it. You don't think of it that way, but that's the way it is. It's like spaghetti, you know. All the little, all the pieces, they're all, you know, mixed up together. So, you had a question? Well, I was wondering, does emptiness mean constantly ceasing to exist and coming into existence? Does emptiness refer to things constantly coming into existence?

[23:57]

Oh, changing. Changing, yes. Emptiness means interdependence. But it also means the creative principle, as it were, behind that, that is causing that to happen somehow? Yeah, well, that's included. If you say emptiness is this or emptiness is that, that's not right. But if you say emptiness includes this or includes that, otherwise, because emptiness is, it's a tool that we use. It's just a tool that we use. But if you wanted to understand what it refers to, it refers to the fact that no dharma has its own independent existence apart from all other dharmas. So the Hawaiian understanding is all is one and one is all. Within one, everything is included. And within that inclusion, everything is one.

[25:04]

So one is all and all is one. That's the basic thing. And Indra's net is the picture. There's a net, and at each crossing of the net is a mirror. And all these mirrors are reflecting each other ad infinitum. narrow and innovative side and the narrow side of the old school. Yeah, thank you. We should get back to that. A few weeks ago, you said that you are not innovative. There are people out there, your teachers, that want to innovate, but you are trying to pass along what you learned. I'm Hinayana. Right. What you learned is to be Hiroshi and pass on to us, and you're not innovative. But actually, when I think about the time I've been here, You've been very innovative. Yeah, I don't mind. In adjusting and changing to the circumstance that meets the people and the times and whatnot.

[26:10]

I guess we hang up something in space saying, I am this, but actually if you look closer, it's not what we saw. From some people's point of view, you're very innovative, and from others, you're not innovative enough. From some perspectives, yes. So my question to you is, how do you determine the moment of, like, innovating? Like, if something is presented to you, there may be the initial response of, I don't want to do that, that doesn't feel right. And then maybe over time, it evolves, and we can try that out. Is that sort of the middle way of trying to hold these two extremes of narrow and innovative or wide? I don't think about it. I don't. Every moment is a moment of innovation. Okay. Yeah. Every moment is a moment of innovation. And you can't repeat anything. You cannot repeat anything.

[27:13]

You can repeat certain things that feel repetitive, but actually you cannot repeat. Everything is history. Everything is history. even though we're all here, just like we were a few minutes ago. But it's all history, and you can't grasp history. I mean, you can grasp history, but you can grasp the remnants of history, right? But not history itself. And people love antiques. Actually, I'm an antique. Nowadays, anything over 50 years old is an antique. And people talk about antiques from the 70s. And I'm thinking, from the 70s? But no, it's all innovation. So our precepts, we have certain rules that are guidelines, but they're all just

[28:19]

And we pay attention to them, but at the same time, we're always stepping in and stepping out. We have precepts, the 10 prohibitory precepts, which we dealt with, I think, last time, a little bit. And so, sometimes when people become ordained, or have lay ordination, they say, Or we have lay ordination and they say, well, I don't think I can do that because I can't keep all those precepts. They don't understand. It's not about you keeping all those precepts, even though you recite the precepts, right? It's a precepts ceremony. But those are just, nobody can keep all the precepts. And so we're always going in, out of bounds and in bounds and out of bounds and in bounds all the time. That's keeping the precepts. Going in and out all the time.

[29:21]

It's not that you're breaking the precepts. It's that you're extending the precepts. You're extending the precepts to real life and not to just an idea about how to conduct yourself. Life's not like that. It's flexible and malleable. the written law doesn't cover the natural law completely. So life is innovation. That's precepts, and that's Suzuki Hiroshi's understanding, and our school's understanding is that when we go too far out from the precepts, then we realize that, and that's called we realize it and turn around and make some amends and keep going. So it's called staining the precepts rather than breaking them.

[30:28]

Breaking the precepts would be to stomp out and do something else completely. say, I am not, I'm no longer a Buddhist and I will not practice the precepts anymore and I'm gone. That's breaking the precepts. It's like you cut down the tree and you can't put the tree back together again. But we're always making, transgressing the precepts and that's what makes life interesting. Actually, I remember I'd quit smoking in 1973 And I used to visit Kobin Kino, one of our wonderful Japanese priests. And when I got there, we were having talks, and when I got there, he brought up two pipes. And he gave me one, and we put to the back one.

[31:30]

I said, I don't smoke anymore. He said, don't be so pure. And that is actually part of our practice. Don't be so pure, you know. When somebody presents, when a student presents a teacher with an okesa, you know, full robe, that's brand new, the teacher makes a mark on it so that it won't be perfect. I don't have to do that. Because they're never perfect anyway. Just going back to the schools and the way to look at any school, wasn't it reported that Dogen said something like, we shouldn't think of ourselves as even as a school?

[32:34]

Yes, that's right. We should not think of ourselves. This is not the Zen school, right? It's just Buddhadharma. At the other hand, he said, this is Zen school, right? So, but that's both sides. One side is, yes, this is the Zen school. And the other side is, there's no such thing as a Zen school. You have to understand both sides. So it sounds a little fudgy, right? But it's, I remember Suzuki Roshi coming up and saying to me, just out of the blue, and saying, this is not the Zen school, it's just Buddhism. He didn't even say it's not the Zen school, he just said, it's just Buddhism. And then Kadagiri came up and he said, it's just Buddhism. They're telling me something, you know, which they've probably been talking about. They didn't want us to think of Zen. Like, you know, 510 school.

[33:39]

So they were very careful. Suzuki Roshi was so careful. Very careful about ego and making some kind of, you know, self-promotion. Really careful. More than most any other teachers I know of. A moment ago when you were talking about kind of going in and going out, the precepts, is that speaking to Zenukiroshi's teaching of we're half good and half bad? Yes. Yes. He would say we're half good and half bad. That's in order to keep you from bragging about how good you are. Or how bad you are. Or how bad you are. Yes. So, you know, complaining about how bad you are is a big ego trip. I remember an exchange at Shosan where someone was talking about how they thought bad about themselves, they weren't any good and all that, and you said that was just ego.

[34:46]

And it really was helpful to hear that because if we're trying to see our ego and how we promote ourselves in one way or another, we typically think of it as on the positive side, or arrogant side, but actually it's less of a form of arrogance. Yes, the form of arrogance. So we have to be careful about good and bad. Not to fall, we want to, some people feel it's great to fall into the bad side. Some people feel it's great to fall into the good side. But sometimes we're good and sometimes we're bad. And that's all. Because we have this standard about being good. The worst one is, I'm such a bad zesty. There's no good Zen student or bad Zen student.

[35:49]

Everyone's just the same. We do bad things and we do good things, but that doesn't make you a good Zen student or a bad Zen student. It's just that sometimes you do good things. And sometimes a good Zen student does something really bad. Sometimes a bad student does something really good. Who's to say, right? So, the main thing is not to be attached. So, Roshi-san, I heard, I didn't come here, I came here definitely for this, but I heard that there was going to be some talk about precepts and specifically in relation to human relations. Yes. That's what we're talking about. But you were not here for the other four classes. I was here for the first. The first one, yeah. So we went through the various numbers, but we're still talking about the precepts.

[36:59]

To me, this is precepts. But now, I wanted to talk What was your, would you say something about, it's not that I'm changing the subject, I'm just changing the program a little bit, because I didn't want to ignore what you had brought up. We were bringing in precepts last time that we were writing for ourselves, for our own behavior, and as we were talking about it, I thought, Would there be a group of precepts which would help guide us in our relationships with each other? I mean, the precepts, some of them do directly, but I was thinking more about things like how to manage conflict, how to manage reactivity, when those things are in interaction with one another.

[38:05]

Well, yeah, I think that's valid. Could you give us an example? For me, I've been sort of thinking about it. I was thinking that some of the ones that I was thinking of are things that I would do myself in order to get along better. Some of them are things that require actual agreements between two people or kind of a public agreement in a group. An example of the first one would be, I vow not to speak out of my reactivity and wait until I can communicate what I'm feeling in a way that has the best likelihood of being heard. Yeah, well, so what do we think of that?

[39:07]

John? Actually, as head dishwasher, I've been accused of being bossy. And so my response, for example, is, well, why do people have to call me bossy? You don't really understand that I need to be bossy for something like this, right? And this is my job to be bossy. Mary just suggested would be, well, if I had written that precept down and held it in the prompter, I would have said to myself, oh, I don't know what I would have said, actually, but the challenge was to not be reactive, not to speak out of my reactivity, and to come up with, I'm sorry, maybe, or I don't know, it does challenge me, but that example is on the top of my docket right now. Yeah, that's good. You know, reactivity is one, but defensiveness, what are we defending?

[40:22]

So when that kind of question comes up, I think, well, what are we defending? And how to You know, the word renunciation comes up. Renunciation means to examine where the ego is and let go of it. To me, that's real renunciation. Not to dump your TV in the lake, but how to let go of ego, reactivity, because the reactivity and a little bit of anger, it builds the ego. It's the ego, and the poor ego, you know, we love the ego. But it's the mischievous, it, how can you use the ego in a positive way instead of self-defense?

[41:32]

It occurs to me that my reaction, as I just stated it, is also putting down the other person, attacking their ego in the sense of how could you feel that way, you're wrong, without thinking about it or without the prompter in front of you and catching it. So, yeah, it's the ego. Yeah, so what can you say in a situation like that? I mean, how could you handle the situation so as to Diffuse. Diffuse it so that, you know, the fuse goes zzzzz and boom. How can you diffuse the situation? I could use some input. Oh, okay. Ron? I hear you. Yeah, I hear you. Yes, that's good. I hear you. Thank you. Thank you is a little bit harder, but I

[42:34]

there are some reactive, really reactive people that I've met from time to time. And so I've given them the koan of when somebody criticizes you or you hear what sounds to you like criticism or whatever, to bow and say thank you and mean it. That's one. But I think that what Ron said is very good. It's kind of similar. I usually get in trouble on the other side in that I don't say something. I react by not saying something and kind of checking out, or not checking out, but withdrawing. And then I will. So in that case, my koan would be how to step forward, in fact.

[43:44]

And my trouble is, it comes to the same thing. I have to describe what is going on with me. So I can't say thank you. I have to be more descriptive than that. And how do you say something It's exactly your question. How do you say something that does not prompt reactivity in return? Yes. To be able to accept, right? It takes a lot of courage because you're embarrassed, right? And then your face gets red. You have to let that happen. You kind of have to let that happen, and realize that it's letting go of yourself, basically, and coming back to neutral.

[44:49]

It's really coming back to neutral. There's nothing you can do about it, but to come back to neutral, and then you can respond. But otherwise, what happens often is we get pushed into a corner. If I say, you know, you did this and you want to defend yourself, the more you defend yourself, the further back into the corner you go. And then pretty soon, you know, you're getting really angry and you'd lash out. fear of somehow hurting somebody else, or shame at something that I feel I've done. And so I don't know if that's, I guess withdrawing to protect myself from a sense of shame is a kind of defensiveness, it's trying to defend my ego from something.

[45:52]

I think we're all like that. You know, you share that with everybody. So I think to realize that you share that with everybody is, helps. You know, because when this happens, it puts us out, we're standing alone. And with no help. But then we have to realize that everybody feels this way. And so I'm in good company with everybody. And they understand, when I say, when I give up, You know, when I give up my defense, everybody appreciates that a lot. And they all love you. your conflict to just say, let's just take a minute.

[46:56]

And then usually, I mean, I would reckon I'd go, yeah, I need a minute too, you know. And then I think it's what Mary said, if you wait, there's a little space there, you can remember what your basic intention is. Yeah. When people ask Suzuki Roshi about anger, he said, count to 10. While you're counting, you're no longer angry. I don't know if that's true or not, but completely, yes. So maybe the opposite vow of the one that I was talking about, which is one that I would also apply myself, which is to promise myself that I would give myself whatever time I needed to collect my thoughts, but then come back and address it rather than let it fester, regardless of how long it took. I mean, I have had experiences where I went away and tried to work on it in Zazen, and I tried to deconstruct the feeling, and I tried to work it through my systems, and then I get into another situation with the same person, and they say, yet again, another thing that sets me off, and that reaction is way worse than the first reaction would have been, right?

[48:13]

So if I had been following that, if I'd had that precept, then I would have tried to track the fact that I still had something to say, and I still had to get back to that person. I think that's, if we had an agreement collectively to try not to let things fester, that would fall into another category of precepts that we would hold together as a group, like the way we operate is we try not to let things fester. And just on the same note, it's the same with me, Duke, and like, basically the same thing, which is, something happens, someone says something, and I don't react. And in the past, I used to just let it sit with me, and bother me. Now recently, I've started practicing to just let it go. Just drop it, like meaning, someone says something, just figure out a way to,

[49:16]

I'm wondering if one way to respond in both of these situations to somehow take the focus off of the conflict arising would be to ask a question and to invite the other person to talk more about what they're thinking or feeling and invite a conversation so that I think if a person is bringing something up, it's because they want to be heard. And if you're feeling something, you want somebody to understand what you're feeling. You want to be heard as well. So maybe by being pulled into a conversation with one another, you can broaden the context and then find something to link into. Well, that's interesting. It's like resolution, right? how do you bring the two disparate parts together in understanding?

[50:40]

And in order to do that, to bring the two together in understanding, sometimes very difficult, you know, but, It occurs to me that counting to 10 may be counting to 10 days or 10 hours or something else, but holding the intention of not letting it fester or not being repressed or whatever, oppressed, and then looking... I think that if we hold the intention, the opportunity becomes visible when it arises. Waiting for the opportunity. I think that's really an important part because patience. You want it to be resolved right now, but it can't be resolved right now.

[51:43]

So you go as far as you can, but you hold it in patience. And sometimes just being a part allows the charge to so that you can actually look at what's actually happening, because the charge is all about me. And when the charge is the lesson, then you can come together and talk about the thing, and that takes time. So you can't solve everything right away, but we want to. And I think that's really an important part of it, is to just have the patience to allow things to digest and then you come together with a person after a while and, oh yeah, remember that? Yeah. Yeah. So all arguments are different, have different potentials.

[52:47]

Judy. You know, when I attune to my visceral experience of that, that tension is something about How on or off the cushion do I experience viscerally the emptiness of agonizing pain, or rage, or sorrow? That kind of thing, because that's what's coming up in the moment of, OK, waiting for the opportunity, or there's no resolution in this moment. Where is faith going to kick in, or where is refuge going to come in? What's the motivation? to be able to renounce, okay, in this moment, this particular thing doesn't have resolution. What is patience actually gonna feel like that I can stay with and find refuge in in that moment? Is that the three pure precepts? Is that, what is that? Well, it's by looking at what, what is it that's coming up here?

[53:53]

What am I contributing to this, Sometimes you can't even name the problem, it's just, you know, it's like when I have a migraine, I'm not naming a problem, it's just breath after breath, breathing into that place and just staying present to, you know, and it's the same with emotional pain that's really surging in a moment. Well, that's one, definitely one way is to breathe into your headache. to breathe into your para, actually, so that you're coming from a calm place. The main thing is how you get calm. How do you calm yourself so that you can actually see the reality of the other person and yourself without creating more of a problem? There's a motivation, what we call that bodhi or mahayana. Well, you should have the motivation all the time.

[54:58]

It shouldn't just be coming up. Well, yes, but it's easy to, you know, slide off. Yes. The guy who's yelling, you know, like we talked about traffic the other night, you know. Why do you do that? And you're yelling and screaming. I do this all the time. I'm yelling and screaming. But I know, this is just bullshit. It's just my bullshit. And so I don't pay. It's nothing. I just let it go. I just let it go. Yeah. Otherwise, I'd be, you know, bam, bam. I feel like bam, bam. But that's just a joke. It's just giving expression to your rage or whatever it is, but it's not serious. It's not serious. And so it's a little bit like drama, you know. I can't remember your name.

[56:21]

Sabrina. Sabrina, yeah. Well, something that's helped me a lot, when I have conflict with people I know, especially, but even people I don't know, in the parking lot somewhere, where, you know, everyone's fighting for a parking space or something. Oh, yeah, a parking space as well. I've been able to watch myself, like, I know, it seems like I'm coming out of myself. and just watching, like, how are they reacting to this person? And that is probably the most helpful thing, to just kind of, you know, realize you don't have to react to whatever it is that they're screaming, you idiot, or whatever. But just kind of watch, well, you know, it's their thing anyway, what they're going, what they're emoting. It's not you, so you don't necessarily have to react. You have a choice. Well, you know, what comes to mind is that as a practice, you're always finding your center and you're always coming from the commonness of your mind.

[57:32]

If you practice that all the time, like, how do I want to feel or how do I want to, what is my disposition? The disposition that I feel makes me happy. or makes me feel right with the world and with myself. What is that disposition? Is that anger, or is it jealousy, or is it envy, or is it whatever? Well, when you sit zazen, it's calmness of mind and centeredness. So if that is what you want, then that's what you practice. And then when things happen, It's just like sitting in Zazen. This thing happens, and I don't get attached to it, even though we get attached to it, but we have the ability to come back to the calmness of our mind, which is where we abide. Of course, that's a rigid precept.

[58:37]

Could be a rigid precept, but it's not. It's like, That's how you diffuse a situation and accept that somebody's yelling, screaming at you without reacting. So not reacting is really the key, and it's really hard because our ego is hurt. Okay, Ken. I think I'm, for myself, I'm questioning And for me actually, what I've been learning and in relationship have been learning is that it's really important actually to express yourself in that moment with that feeling. Yes. And what you're saying about being in your hara is actually really important for that moment.

[59:38]

you and they will be hurt. However, if you can come from, I mean, usually that's not anger, usually it's more sadness or something. If you, in that moment, can express that, somehow there's some alchemy that happens that doesn't happen when three days later you're saying, oh, remember that time, I felt this way, what was going on with you? It doesn't happen. So there's no special way. That's, there's no special way. So whatever we say, the opposite is also possible, right? So if somebody, this is, you know, our practice. When we see a student or a member, you know, who's very reticent, then we urge them to, you know, speak up, do something. If somebody's always blabbing, you know, we say, So, it's not the same for everybody. I wanted to say, if I were the one yelling at Sabrina in the parking lot, then I could also say, oh, I hear myself yelling in the parking lot, but I'm not that permanently, or even for the next five minutes.

[61:02]

I can stop right now. I don't have to be anchored by spontaneous anger or reactivity, and I get over it maybe sooner. But also, anger, as an example, you should be able to use it instead of it using you. Because your emotions, when you give freedom to your emotions, they use you, and you become a victim of your own emotions. So, and your own feelings. So how you don't become a victim, it's not like you hide your feelings, you express your feelings, but not in reactivity, in response. So the difference between response and reactivity. Response is when you step back and your response comes from a deep place of non-reactivity, because reactivity attaches you to that which you're reactive to.

[62:03]

and then you become a prisoner of your own reactivity. We don't realize it. But we like it. We like the anger. So it's okay. Sometimes you should be angry. Sometimes, you know, you should be jealous. When we give ourselves up, meaning, let the response come up, which is fairness or whatever you call it, then you can feel what you feel and express what you express and go on, leaving no trail, leaving no traces. It's called the bird's path. You know, the bird hops around. What's its path, right? Or the fish swims, but it's hard to trace their path. But the fish is always, you know, things go in and then he just goes on.

[63:13]

Sure, sure. I'm just absolutely amazed by that, that thing that you said about the bird Say more about it. Oh, well that's Tozan, the bird's path. That's all I can say about it. Oh, come on. It's living on each moment without worrying about the past and the future. It's not that you don't pay attention to the past and the future, but you're not caught by the past and the future. And you're also not caught by the present. Because you're totally in the present. Birds lead a simple life, you know. Ours is a little more complex. But it's really just being in the present. We have this whole culture of predictability.

[64:29]

Yes, predictability. We want to quantify everything. Yes. I think there's some millennial somewhere figuring out all the little paths that the birds... Yeah, and so someday we'll be living on Mars, you know, in a gated community. Yeah, well, the bird's path is being present without attachment. And the early bird gets—did you have any more of those little treasures? I was contemplating out of Ken's talking about speaking from the emotion of the moment.

[65:38]

What's the difference between that and being reactive and trying to sort out that? And then I remembered a visual that I got in a continuing ed class that was actually useful. as a psychiatrist was teaching about what he means by reactivity. And if this is a model of the brain with the limbic system where all the emotions are in the center, these are the two hemispheres in the cortex wrapping around the limbic system, that reactivity is when the limbic system takes over. Well, first of all, the cortex is in complete contact with the limbic system all the time, so it's mediating the emotions mostly. But when we get really set off, actually, the cortex goes offline. And it's just reaction. And that's what I mean by reactivity.

[66:38]

And what you're talking about is, actually, the cortex goes back online. You're still feeling what you're feeling. But you're actually connecting with the other person. And you're aware of what they're doing and what you're doing. You're holding the relationship in mind. while you're having your feeling, which seems to me to be the opposite of going offline and catching one's reason. You know, one of the keys is, although you may have a difference or an argument or whatever, you're always protecting the other person. Or having faith in the connection. Yeah, because there's no way you can have a real connection unless you actually understand and appreciate the other person. I don't think so.

[67:39]

Even, you know, people that we seize at seize at every day. There are things that make us so angry every day and they get worse and worse. How do you deal with that? Well, one thing, one part, one aspect is the reaction to all this and the other is trying to understand it. And when you see a person who's always reactive, in some way, and it's really offensive to try to understand where they're coming from. You can't investigate their childhood and all that, but they're stuck someplace. So in other words, what is the norm?

[68:44]

That's an interesting question, what is the norm? If we're gonna stand in the norm, What is that? It may be different for different people, but Shakyamuni Buddha, according to history, says, all I teach is the norm. So that's a big koan. All I teach is the norm. I don't teach anything special or extra or just what is the norm? And then we may have different ideas about what that is. What's normal for you may not be the norm for me. But there is a norm that is common to everyone. Possible. Which is what we call reality or the natural order of mind. The truth. Yeah, the natural order of mind. When we left last week, Mary said this, you know, about

[69:51]

work with each other in our precepts. And so I went home and I cook like once a week for my wife, sometimes twice. And the norm is to clean the stove, clean the, what do you call it? Clean up after yourself. Clean the burners and the thing right away. Right. after I've done cooking, because otherwise, the norm is I'll get browbeaten that there's something wrong with the countertop. That's your norm. What did you say, my norm? Yeah. Yeah. So that's called the usual norm. But the real norm is how do you act as a mature person? That's called bodhisattva. Bodhisattva means someone who acts as a mature person.

[71:04]

So what is a mature person? That's a good question. And I think that's, is this immature? Response? What is a mature response? So this is more like our precepts. It's like a koan. What is a mature response? How do I make a mature response to everything I meet? If we keep that in mind, then that's our practice. And thank you for lifting that up. I thought you were going to hit me over the head. Well, thank you for our lively system. This is the end.

[71:51]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ