Good morning. It gives me great pleasure to introduce our speaker today, Sowon Soto, Ron Nestor. Sowon Soto is a Dharma name that he was given way back when, and it translates as friendly, kind, ancestral way, which is perfectly apt because Ron's long history with Berkley Zen Center and its original location on Dwight Way as well as a transition here, makes him a resource for a line that goes back many, many years and a lot of help of many people. So if you ever have questions about how things evolved, Ron is a good person to check in with about how that came to be. In 9th grade, he was the evogender for the school. And in his interest in study and such, he's the coordinator for the study program here at Berkley Zen Center, and his figure is prominently in making the Buddhadharma available to us in many venues.

[01:02]

He is married, and for a livelihood, he is a massage therapist at a yoga studio in San The good thing about being yearbook editor in 9th grade was I could get out of class a lot and get other people out of class too and so we all had a great time just hanging out together and working too. And actually I don't do the massage so much anymore but actually manage So I was doing Zazen instruction today, so we were over in the community room while you were doing the ceremony. Is it hard to hear, Eric? Let me work on it. Go ahead.

[02:03]

Speak it out. We go through this every time. I hear you. Well, all right. There I was. So I wasn't at the ceremony, but this ceremony is about Buddha's death. And so I just wanted to relatively short account of Buddha's death and the events leading up to it. I think you probably know the basics of what happened or how the story has come down to us. But some of the details are interesting in that they convey, there's something that's conveyed in the story of how Buddha died that's very encouraging and very, although there's a lot of mythology that can be added into it, really the core story is very simple and straightforward and shows us something about the way that he taught and the way that the community of monks around him

[03:13]

lived. He was about 80 years old when he died, and he had been teaching for maybe 50 years or so, and just traveling throughout India, giving lectures, giving talks, and during the monsoon season, when it was raining, the monks would all stay together, they'd have a practice period, and then they would spread out. And he and Buddha, with a revenue of monks, would travel throughout India giving lectures in various places. His attendant was Ananda. And Ananda had been with Buddha for maybe 25 years or so, 25 to 30 years, being kind of like his Jisha, and a little bit like Alexander does, sort of taking care of details, helping him with just scheduling and various details of his life.

[04:17]

So Ananda was his faithful companion, and Ananda was a very gentle and compassionate personality, and also Ananda was very much instrumental in helping bring women into the ordained sangha. He was actually a very handsome, good-looking guy. And women were very attracted to him. But he was also attracted back. And Buddha had to kind of keep him on... remind him of his vows. Because there was a lot of attraction for him with women and vice versa. But originally, Shakyamuni had not wanted to ordain women. because he felt they were entirely equal in terms of ability to practice and find out how things actually are.

[05:20]

There was no difference between men and women in that respect. But he was afraid that if men and women were both in an ordained group together that it would create potential problems. So he was resistant. And Ananda convinced him to change his mind based on the sincerity that he felt in the women practitioners who wanted to be ordained and their way-seeking minds. So Buddha changed his mind and welcomed women into this ordained sangha. Also, Nanda had this wonderful memory. He could remember everything that Buddha said. In the old days, in the West and the East, memory was cultivated as an art. People could cultivate very good memory skills, which I think we're gradually more and more losing as technology replaces memory.

[06:27]

At some point, in his 80th year or 79th year, right around there, Ananda notices that Buddha is suffering, he's in pain, and asks him what's going on. He says, I'm really having a hard time. My body is like a worn-out cart. It's worn out. Then, if you were 80 years old, it's probably like being about 110 now. So A.D. was quite old in those days, this is like 500 B.C. or so. And he told Ananda that in three months he would die. So Ananda was distraught, obviously distraught, and grief-stricken, upset. Ananda asked him for any last instructions and Buddha said, well, there's no last instructions and don't worry about who's going to lead the Sangha because I've never seen myself as being the leader of a Sangha.

[07:44]

I've never intended that the Sangha should depend upon me. My intention is simply to present Dharma and not to necessarily be a leader of a Sangha. and I've already been speaking for 50 years, you should have gotten it by now. And then he said his famous words, which is actually, for Buddhist or non-Buddhist alike, maybe the most recognizable or famous thing to be ever said, which is, therefore Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no other refuge. With dharma as your island, dharma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. Let me say it one more time. Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no other refuge.

[08:50]

With dharma as your island, dharma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. And the way we usually hear this is, be a lamp unto yourself, or be a light unto yourself. And that was the prevailing translation until relatively recently. And scholars have more or less agreed that actually the real, the actual wording was islands. Be islands unto yourselves. And however, I think that if, you know, if you allow for time and place, the era that he was talking in and where they were versus now, that then, to say islands was appropriate to now, as Americans, I think that if we were to translate it as light, it would be more appropriate to actually convey what he was trying to convey in a way that's more true to what his meaning was for us now. The problem with islands is that it suggests a kind of separation

[09:52]

that here we're on this special dharma island and out there we're separate from out there and that we should remain separate which is the antithesis actually of what Zen teaching is about. Can I insert a linguistic info? So in Sanskrit, and I know this from modern Hindi, dweep is island and deep is land, so you can understand that. But also dweep especially in the ancient periods, meant something much bigger than island in our modern sense. It meant these huge kind of vast continental reaches and in fact the whole earth was called Jambu Dweep, Jambu Continent. So it wasn't the little idea of island that we have now. Okay, that's another version. Did you hear what she said? Okay. So be a continent unto yourself. Or it could even be a planet.

[10:56]

Be a planet or be a body unto yourself. You can see we don't want it to mean island. Anyway, sorry. But most, everywhere you read it will say island. So they have it cut up. Okay, go on, sorry. But also, the gist is basically, what he's really saying is don't look outside of yourself. Look into yourself for what's true and what's real, rather than relying on some authority. It doesn't mean that you can't learn or be open to teaching, but ultimately it's a matter of finding what's true within, And that structure could be anything. It could be temples, sutras, teachings, the Bible, a guru. A guru can be wonderfully helpful, but in terms of helping us to see what's within ourselves rather than seeing the guru as a savior.

[12:04]

That was his point. So then, He also told Ananda that because of the psychic powers, he could extend his life. If he wanted to, he could extend his life. He said this three times to Ananda, and Ananda didn't say anything. So, in a sense, he was giving Ananda an opening to request that he prolong his life. And Ananda didn't do that. Interesting. And there's no reason given, necessarily. So, he didn't do it. What it suggests is that, as far as Shakyamuni was concerned, he could go either way. It didn't matter. He could go either way, depending on what the circumstances warranted. Actually, by Ananda just letting it go, in a way, nature was just allowed to take its course.

[13:07]

Rather than trying to change something, or extend something, or fabricate something, make something more than it was, they allowed it just to occur. So then he traveled for several months with a small group of monks and eventually wound up being invited to spend a couple of days at the household of Kunda one of his lay disciples. And Kunda prepared a meal for him that was somehow composed of something related with pigs. I'm not sure exactly what the translation was, but it had to do with pigs and some kind of pig meat probably. And Buddha would not let anybody else eat except for himself, And sure enough, the next day, he got violently ill.

[14:11]

So it's also interesting that just from a kind of forensic point of view, I read an account of an Indian doctor who spent a lot of research trying to figure out exactly what happened to him. What kind of illness did he really have? And he, I don't know the name of this illness, but it's a modern, recognizable, modern condition. Andrea, you might know about it. I disagree with his diagnosis. speculative. But anyway, the gist of it was, he was already sick for three months, and that the meal, this particular meal, just sort of exacerbated the illness. So it wasn't necessarily that this meal was so bad all in itself. It's a matter of contention. We'll move on. So then he travels to Kusinagara, which is a small town nearby, and his disciples want

[15:16]

go to a more major city which has a good reputation, high class, big city, he's going to die. But he's just fine dying in a small town, nothing special. As he's dying, he asks his monks if they have any further asked me any questions that you might have and nobody answers. He asked that three times and again nobody answers. Ananda thinks this is really admirable, the fact that they're totally satisfied, they have no further questions, they've really got his teaching. So his last words are, all compounded things are subject to decay. and then he dies. And then blossoms come down, the trees bloom out of season, and various blossoms come down from the sky.

[16:23]

And then they, later, as they're preparing his funeral pyre, you know, in India that's a big deal. Funeral pyres are big, elaborate ceremonies and structures. They can't get it lit. They try to light it, but it won't light. So then they realize it is because Makakashapa, who is basically Buddha's lead disciple, or who would be the leader of the community when Buddha is gone, he hasn't arrived yet. Makakashapa hasn't arrived yet. So they wait for him, and when he arrives, he's able to set the funeral pyre on fire. So, Makakasyapa is interesting, and particularly his relationship with Ananda. Makakasyapa also grew up like Buddha, from a wealthy Brahmin family, and actually was married.

[17:33]

We don't usually think of Makakasyapa as being married, but he was, because he's known as being the ascetic, really hard, tough, practicing ascetic. above reproach and a model for the community. And early on, his parents tell him they want him to get married when he's a young man. And he says he kind of creates an ideal statue of the perfect woman. And he says, well, if you can find a woman like this, I will marry her. knowing that they'll never find somebody that perfect. But of course they do find somebody that perfect. It was Kapalani. And so Kapalani, actually like him, is a very sincere practitioner. And so they get married, but they lived a chaste relationship. And they're both really devoted to spiritual life.

[18:36]

and eventually she becomes ordained by Buddha as well and actually becomes a teacher in her own right after Buddha's death. So here we have Ananda on one side who really embodies compassion, gentle qualities and also has a way with remembering words, can remember everything the Buddha has said, but also is unenlightened. Ananda is not enlightened. Whereas Makakasyapa is an enlightened being and sort of embodies wisdom, a really hard ascetic practice. and seen as leadership qualities within the Sangha. These two monks that are very close to Shakyamuni, each has different qualities, compassion and wisdom.

[19:45]

So, I'm interested in this what Buddha says, be a light or an island until yourself. Why he says that is because of our tendency to look for external authority or external validation of what we actually are. And so, you know, and the words are very important. I mean, you think, although our practice is very much a sitting practice, Zazen is the core of our practice, nevertheless, that most people are in this zendo when there's a lecture. There's so many more people in the zendo during a lecture than there is during sitting. Also, that we only have talks maybe twice a week, that's also part of it. But words are really important, and teaching is important.

[20:57]

However, in the other side, which is just letting go of words and thought, is really core practice for us as well. So in some sense, I was thinking that Ananda, he memorized or knew everything that, for the most part, the Buddha had When they convened a council after Buddha's death, Ananda was the one they relied upon to repeat what Buddha had said. On the other hand, Makakaśipa was the one who organized the council, got everything together, and led the proceedings. And actually, they wouldn't let Ananda join because he wasn't enlightened. And so, although Makakaśipa wanted him to be included, So Ananda quickly enlightened himself the night before.

[21:59]

Under pressure the night before. And so they invited him in. He fell asleep. That's how he got enlightened. He was working hard, hard and then he fell asleep and then he gets enlightened when he goes to sleep. Don't try it. Actually Sojin is a model for that. That's what he's been doing all this time. So these two work together. It's like compassion and wisdom working together to sustain sangha and practice. And so although Ananda was really expert with words and remembering words, Magakasyapa on the other hand is really, you know, we see him as the first ancestor of Zen.

[23:20]

And there's a koan I'm not sure why we, you know, based on the koan that we have, you can see why that would be. I'm not sure why we would see him as a first ancestor other than this koan. Maybe somebody could explain it to us. But we'll come back to that later. But the koan in the Mumon Koan, where Buddha is giving a talk to the assembly, and everybody's waiting for his wonderful words from Shakyamuni Buddha, all the retinue of monks are waiting, it's all quiet. And Buddha gets up and rather than say anything, he just holds up a flower. And all the monks are puzzled, they don't understand what's happening. They were expecting him to say something profound. And instead of saying anything profound, he holds up a flower.

[24:21]

And Makakasyapa smiles. And Buddha sees the smile and realizes that they're both in the same wavelength, that they both understand what Buddha is trying to convey. And then Buddha says, I have the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, and the subtle Dharma gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine, independent of words, and transmitted beyond doctrine, this I have entrusted to Makakashapa." So, that's what Makakashapa is like, the first ancestor of Zen, and that he sees beyond the words, or underneath the words, underneath the doctrine.

[25:22]

And really that's the essence of Zen practice, is that doctrine and words have their place, but they're not yet. We have to experience directly what's real. And although we can envision and imagine doctrine, we can imagine reality, we can have all kinds of various ideas about what's true, Fundamentally, what's true is not an idea. Although ideas are part of what's true, the idea itself is just an idea. And that's also, I think, what Buddha was getting at when he said, be a lamp unto yourself. Don't depend on doctrine and words, but also don't discard doctrine and words. In the Sandokai, there are these two lines.

[26:34]

Hearing the words, understand the meaning. Don't set up standards of your own. You know, I've chanted the... I'm remiss not having gone deeper into the Sandokai, but I've chanted those lines a lot of times and never thought much about it. Hearing the words, understand the meaning, well that sounds pretty plain. You hear the words, understand the meaning. But looking into it more, reading some commentaries, what they're saying there is saying what sounds obvious, which is hearing the words, understand the meaning, but it needs to be said because hearing the words aren't necessarily understanding the meaning. Even if you think you understand the meaning, it's not necessarily understanding the meaning. So, understanding the meaning may not be what we think it is.

[27:44]

It may not be what we think the words sound like or convey. So on one hand we have the words, but what's fundamental underneath the words? And the problem or the difficulty with words and thought is that it's always dualistic, that it always sets up one thing against another in comparison. So understanding the meaning has to do with not just understanding the relative meaning of the words, but what is the Where is the meaning where we don't divide everything up? Where is the experience where we don't divide everything up into parts?

[28:46]

Because the words are often pointing at that. But if we don't understand or perceive that, it's incomplete. And the next line is, don't set standards of your own. So, sometime in the last year or so, a talk was given where they were stressing the idea of something like be a lamp unto yourself, a light unto yourself, look into yourself. And then somebody asked the question of the speaker, well, if that's true, then why does it say don't set up standards of your own?

[29:50]

supposed to hold. So I don't know how you thought about that line, but think about that line. Don't set up standards of your own. What does that really mean in the context of the Sanda Kai? Actually, Suzuki Roshi in his commentary uses the word rules in talking about that line. So it's more like, don't set up rules of your own. And also Master Sheng Yin says the same thing. So it's like, don't make your life into a life which is based on rules. That's what they're trying to say. Although rules have their place, and particularly within a community, to adapt to the rules that are prevalent is important.

[31:04]

But to see the rules as being the fundamental guiding principle is a mistake. To make rules of right and wrong, good and bad, as being the ultimate guide is very limiting. And yet we tend to do that in probably relatively subtle ways, maybe not so subtle. So when Buddha says, be a light unto yourself, he's also expressing some of the same thing as what they're saying in the Samyukas. Don't set up rules of your own, but Don't set up somebody else's rules either. But at the same time, we need to conform to rules, but not in a huge way. Not in a way where they're guiding the universe.

[32:06]

So, hearing the words, in other words, the words are important, but understand the meaning. Understand what the words are really conveying and pointing to, not the words themselves. And don't make up rules. Don't enclose our life in a structure of this is good, this is bad. as being the ultimate guide for how we live. That more importantly is that we respond to what's happening at that time. And there's not a formula, there's not a set of rules that will be real, actually. So I would like to stop there. Do you have any comments or questions? Alan?

[33:29]

Well, I had a speculation. Well, first of all, to me, I think those two lines are intimately linked. Don't set up standards of your own, to me, refers back to the line before us. Basically, don't get your understanding from your own distorted self-centered view. The meaning is underneath that. And in the context of early Indian or maybe even contemporary Indian society, the notion of being an island to yourself or being a lamp unto yourself was radical in the setting of a society that was governed by social forces where people were

[34:38]

So the idea of individualism, of saying, you have to find the ground yourself, irrespective of what society is saying, is a radical notion in that society. On the other hand, we have exactly the opposite problem here. So how we understand that in a dynamic way is, I think, an open question. I don't know what you think about that, and I don't know what Linda thinks about mine. She's rolling her eyes. I'm rolling my eyes at the idea that I should know whether you're right or wrong. You know a lot more about Indian history and Indian contemporary society than I do. Well, I would say just look at Japan. It's funny, we have a Japanese oriented practice, but in Japan, to say, be an island of yourself would be a good medicine. For us, to say, be a light, would be a better medicine. Right. Well, it's kind of interesting to just ask, what does being a light unto yourself, what does that mean?

[35:59]

Why not, you could say, sometimes be a, I don't know, be a goal unto yourself? A light is something that shines on other objects. So maybe that's part of a helpful metaphor. That's different than an island, but a light is something that illuminates other objects. So what does it mean to be a light unto yourself? What's a light unto yourself? Well, I understand it as that the light comes from within yourself. The light is not coming from an authority, or a scripture, or a doctrine, or a government. So in other words, your inner light illuminates your environment. Yes. It's counterintuitive because our senses are so strong and our desire for stimulation is so strong that we We want to go chasing everything that looks attractive instead. For me, this problem of when our words are engaging in conversation

[37:12]

language world. I'm kind of wondering if you could comment on how words are beyond dualism, or how we exist in that world beyond dualism. Well, I think to be aware of the limitations of dualism, to be aware of that limitation that's there, and not just to see that. To see that words are limited by dualistic framework. To say that either you're dualistic or you're non-dualistic is dualistic. The whole thing about dividing up between dualism and non-dualism is a dualistic way of talking that we have to do. But I think that our Our challenge is to see the limitations of our dualistic way of perceiving, and then see what happens.

[38:55]

This isn't exactly the subject you're talking about, but it's something that I thought about in giving this talk. that somehow is relevant about words and being true to yourself. When Chögyam Trungpa, a Tibetan teacher back in the 70s and 80s, came, he was actually friendly with a number of people from Zen Center, Jakso Kuang Roshi and also David Schneider? No, no, the teacher. Suzuki Roshi. Well, Suzuki Roshi. He loved Suzuki Roshi very much. And then Shino Roshi. Kobun Shino Roshi. And he was actually really good pals with Kobun Shino. They both had wives that were kind of hot-tempered, and they were both about the same age, and they were both kind of mavericks in their own way.

[40:05]

Kwang, Do Kwang, Japsho Kwang, Rushi said that one time Trungpa asked him, how are you? And Kwang said, fine. And Trungpa said, what? Japsho Kwang said, it was like, it startled me and I woke up and I was just saying fine. And with Trungpa and their relationship, he's asking you, how are you? Not just, fine. So, it's not really a matter of dualism, but it's a matter of being complete. And that your words are actually expressing what's true, what's real. Your words are not just a kind of... Hearing the words.

[41:20]

One of the things that I always loved about Zen is the way it can do words, sort of dance with words. And I found it so inspiring the way it kept dancing around with words. So back to that word that you were saying that scholars have recently changed their ideas. I find it, on first listen, a sort of unskillful choice to choose the word island, to translate it, given that there are some choices and some different meanings. But it's a really old thing in India, and it's very central to Kabir, the person I'm most intimate with in Indian poetry, that our own body is somehow a universe, a world. And you're really right when you say it's about not relying on some external authority or chasing outside.

[42:27]

But it's also not about individualism. That would be another misleading word to use. And maybe the contrast would be with the Brahmanical sort of Vedic ritualistic society versus this other understanding that happened in Buddhism as well as in Hinduism, that everything you need to experience is within you and when you do, then actually you understand what is outside of you too. Sorry for the lecture. In your body. That's right. And importantly in your body. OK. And also just that Buddhism was actually a away from Brahmanism which said that we are the authorities and you can't really know your true nature except through us. He said that's not true.

[43:23]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ