I vow to taste the fruits of the Jatakata's words. Good evening. Good evening. Well, the subject of our study this practice period is Kezan Zenji's Denko Roku, which translates as transmitting the light. I'm going to talk a little bit about Kaizan first to introduce this. And probably many of you already know about Kaizan. I think some of you don't. Probably some of you don't really know much about Dogen. But Kaizan was Dogen's fourth Dharma successor.

[01:02]

Kaizan's dates are 1268 to 1525. So Dogen was born in 1300. You can always tell how old Dogen was. 1200 by what the date is. So sometimes Dogen is known as the father of Soto Zen and Keizan, the mother. But as we know, Dogen was interested, but was very severe actually, and his Zen was very pure. And when he first came back from China after studying with Tendon Yojo, he was very open to lay people.

[02:13]

And many of his first written works were addressed to lay people, as well as monks. But as Dogen became more and more involved in monastic practice in Japan and trying to establish monastic practice, he directed himself more toward the monk's practice and less toward lay practice. So, his monastic practice was very strong and continued to be strong for several generations. Although, you know, after Dogen, his Dharma heirs were, there was a lot of infighting and disagreements about what they were about and who was who.

[03:14]

And by the time Kaizan appeared, some 60 years later after Dogen, more than that, about 100 years later, Soto Zen had become rather diffused. So Kaizan, was actually the person that brought together the loose ends and established the Soto school. Dogen didn't care so much about establishing the Soto school so much as just establishing the Dharma. But Khe Sanh was the one that actually created the school and made it available to lay people more.

[04:22]

And he sent his disciples out into the countryside to establish small temples and This was one of his major contributions. And so in Japan, in the Soto school, Dogen and Keizan are considered sort of side by side. In America, when Soto Zen came to America, we only learned about Dogen, not so much about Keizan, because Keizan was mostly important to Japanese Zen, not so important to American Zen, as Dogen. So, you know, when we have our Founder's Ceremony once a month, we put up the scroll in the zendo, and it has Dogen, Shakyamuni Buddha, and Bodhidharma.

[05:36]

Suzuki Roshi made the scroll and it has those three names. But in Japan it would be Dogen, Shakyamuni, and Keizan. So he felt that Bodhidharma was more important in this kind of lineage than Keizan would be. as far as an eminent figure. But Dogan and Kaeson are very important, both very important, I think, for our understanding. And we've studied Dogan for quite a long time. And not enough, but we have some understanding of Dogen. And these translations, two translations, one by Cleary and one by Cook, just appeared at the same time. So it's a good time to start studying Kaizan's work.

[06:41]

So this is a major work of Kaizan, Zen master. And What he's done here is taken the Chinese and Indian lineage that we chant every day and written his commentary, or taisho, on the stories. So in these two translations, Cleary's translation is just a straight translation. There are no footnotes. And there are some parts that are left out, actually. And he tends to paraphrase more than Cook. Cook is more literal, tends to be more literal. And he has footnotes. And he divides each one of these what we'll call cases

[07:46]

or stories into first the case, he makes it into a koan. He makes the story of each life into a koan. So first is the case, just like it would be in the Muang Khan, and then he has the circumstances around which the case moves, and then he has his tesho, which is his commentary. and then at the end a poem. So this is the way that Cook divides it, divides the story, which is actually the way it's divided, but it isn't stated. Cook states, makes that clear in his outline. So that's why I prefer to use Cook's translation with Cleary's backup. Sometimes I like the way Cleary translates something better than the way Cook does, but mostly I like Cook's translation.

[08:53]

I think he put more into it. So, if you've ever been around long enough to have read the Vajrabodhi See, do you remember the Vajrabodhi See? It's still printed. It's printed by the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, Master Hua's group. who is now up north in the city of 10,000 Buddhas, used to be in San Francisco, Gold Mountain Monastery. And every time they print their publication, they have one of the stories of the ancestors. And so these stories are go all the way back from Shakyamuni Buddha to all the Chinese ancestors. And they don't include the Japanese ancestors because it's Chinese.

[10:01]

But the Japanese included all the Chinese and Indian and Japanese up to Kaizan. in Tassajara, and now in the city, we're chanting the whole lineage up to the Japanese lineage, up to Suzuki Roshi. So, these were stories that were handed down to Kaizan from the Chinese. And a story of each one of the ancestors, and they're mostly legendary. And he's added his commentary, which is his taisho. And if you try to base these stories on fact, you'll be very disappointed. Because they're really stories that probably have some basis in fact,

[11:10]

But the point of the story is to make a point, not to bring up what actually happened. This is so with most legends, of course. So the Indian stories are much more legendary, and they usually involve magic and fantasy and superstition and sorcery. Most of the Indian ancestors, before they met their Buddhist teacher, usually were sorcerers with a large following of pupils.

[12:14]

And when you read these, you'll see that that's so. And then they met their Buddhist teacher, and after meeting the Buddhist teacher, they realized that sorcery was very limited. And so they gave up their sorcery and became Buddhist ancestors. And Chinese ancestors are more, most of that disappears. You know, the Chinese are also very superstitious. But it doesn't appear so much in the Chinese ancestors. It gets less and less subtle and becomes more what we call normal, if you want to think of it that way. But anyway, The stories all have a point, and as Alan expressed it to me, he said each one is archetypal.

[13:17]

They are all examples of some aspect of teaching. So there's a teaching in each one of these stories. That's the main thing. So don't look for facts, look for the teaching. So there are quite a number of stories and we only have six, I think it's five. So to select the stories is very difficult. because some of them are so wonderful. They're all wonderful, actually. And the more I read them and study them, the more I want to present each one. But since they only have five times, what I will do is have two Indian stories, two Chinese, and one Japanese.

[14:22]

So, I wanted to start with Shakyamuni Buddha, which is the first case. And, yes. Can I just, for some late arrivals, just in case. Does anyone need the Shakyamuni Buddha story? It has Xeroxes, but we don't have any more books, unfortunately. So as we progress here, you might want to buy one of these books. They're not very expensive. And my experience with Buddhist books is that you think that they're always going to be available, but at some point they go out of print. And then you're scrambling around looking for it. So I always urge people to, if you have a class, to buy a book. It's not that expensive. And a good Buddhist book is something that you read over and over.

[15:28]

And I think this one is one that, although you may not read it over and over now, you may read it over and over sometime. Don't look too hard in Berkeley for the Cook edition because you... Do you have them all? We bought all the ones the distributor had. I can call Los Angeles and see if we can get some. Yeah, they went. The query should be available, but we can call DCLA and see if we need it. Okay, do you have any questions about anything that I said? Anything I left out? I just found that the introduction was very, very helpful.

[16:33]

Yeah. The introduction is very good. So what I'm going to do is read, and then I'll have some commentary as I read. If you have any questions anywhere along the line, please feel free to ask any questions anywhere along the line. And when I get to the Taisho part, I'll ask you questions. So first, I'll read the case. Then the circumstances, which is fairly long. and then the Taisho. So here's the case. Shakyamuni Buddha saw the morning star and was enlightened and he said, I and the great earth and beings simultaneously achieve the way.

[17:36]

Now when he presents the case, the case is embedded in the circumstances. This is kind of Japanese way of presenting something, which is very nice, poetic way. First they present the main thing without any background. And then they give you this background. And then you can see where the case is, where what they're presenting is in the background. And then the whole thing takes on a different flavor. So anyway, so this is the case. Shakyamuni Buddha saw the morning star and was enlightened. And he said, I and the great earth and beings simultaneously achieve the way. So it starts with Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment when he sat under the bow tree, according to Buddhist legend. He sat zazen for a good number of days.

[18:40]

We don't know how many, two weeks, a week, something. And when he saw the morning star, he made this proclamation. This is Zen legend. I and the earth and all beings simultaneously achieve the way. This is the way that Zen school understands it. And then, you know, When Buddha, well, after seven days, he was walking, of course, and he took seven steps, and he put one hand, one finger to the sky, one finger to the earth, and said, I alone am the world-honored one. So this I is very important in this case, when he says, I and the great earth.

[19:50]

So if you look at the legend, when he was a baby, he said the same thing. Or when he was a young child, baby, he said, I and all beings Below the sky and above the earth, I alone am the world-honored one. And then here, when he becomes enlightened, he says, I and the great earth and being simultaneously achieve the way, which is the same thing. And it looks egotistical until we understand what I is. So in the Taisho, Keizan explains what he means by I. So Shakyamuni Buddha was of the sun race in India.

[20:56]

Apparently there was a sun race and a moon race. The ancient legends of India talk about a race from the sun and a race from the moon. But it's not important for us. But he was at the Sun Race in India. At the age of 19, he leapt over the palace walls in the dead of night, left everything behind. And at Mount Dantaloka, he cut off his hair. Subsequently, he practiced austerities for six years. Later, he sat on the adamantine seat where spiders spun webs in his eyebrows and magpies built a nest on top of his head. Reeds grew up between his legs as he sat tranquilly and erect, without movement, for six years. At the age of thirty, on the eighth day of the twelfth month, as the morning star appeared, he was suddenly enlightened. These words, in the above case, are his very first lion's roar.

[21:57]

So for six years, if you read the story of Buddha's life, he was an ascetic for six years. And there is this legendary account of getting down to eating one grain of rice a day and letting his hair grow, never washing, laying down and letting people pee on him and shit on him. He went through every kind of indignity in order to try and realize his nature. That's what it means when they said that spiders spun webs in his eyebrows and magpies built a nest on top of his head. Well, when he was sitting, he'd sit for long periods of time. And without moving, sitting for six years without movement doesn't mean he didn't get up.

[23:05]

Just kind of way of speaking, right? Mahavira, you know, at the same time as Shakyamuni was around, the Jain leader Mahavira was a contemporary of Buddha. And if you look at the statues of Mahavira, you see that vines growing up his legs. He just literally stood still for years without moving. Not so much Buddhist practice, more giant practice. The giants were actually more extreme, I think, than the Buddhists. And a Buddhist priest has a staff with rings, and when he walks, the rings jingle.

[24:08]

And the insects, you know, anybody that's down the road that doesn't want to be stepped on will get out of the way. But the giants have a little broom and a dustpan and they sweep, you know. They pay much more attention to that condition. They're very... concerned about being harmless. And they walk around without any clothes. So, the Jains were somewhat close to the Buddhists, but really not the same. And more acidic, I think. And lions roar, you know, like a shout. The arhats, when they became enlightened, they would give a lion's roar, a shout.

[25:15]

And one of the parajika offenses, there were many offenses, rules for Buddhist monks, 250 rules, but there were five rules which, if you broke these rules, you'd be expelled from the Sangha, killing your abuddha, killing, stealing, sexual misadventures, and saying that you were enlightened when you weren't. So you just shouted it instead of saying it? Yeah, just proclaiming your kind of false attainment. So, if you're going to make the lion's roar, it better be genuine. So from that time on, for 49 years, he had not spent a day alone, but preached the Dharma for the assembly constantly.

[26:24]

This is, you know, this kind of statement, didn't spend a day alone, is very Japanese. Japanese practice is very much together with people. And Japanese practice doesn't encourage practice on your own. As Americans, we kind of like the idea of practicing on our own. And it's something that we do. as one of the things that we do. But Japanese practice is very Sangha-oriented. And I think a lot of that comes from making an effort not to be egotistical. When you're doing something with others, you're giving up your own

[27:30]

personal attainment, idea of attainment, in order to do something with other people. It was very important for them. So he says, for that time on, for 49 years, he did not spend a day alone, but preached the Dharma for the assembly constantly. He was never without a robe and a begging bowl. During that time, he preached to the assembly more than 360 times. Well, I would think so. Later, he transmitted the treasury of the eye of the true Dharma to Mahakasyapa. So in this book, Part of what this book is about is the transmission from one ancestor to another. And that's part of the emphasis, that the transmission of light is what one ancestor transmits to another.

[28:35]

And it's something that is not really transmitted. But I'll talk about that later. And it has been passed down from Mahakasyapa through generation after generation to the present. Truly, it has been transmitted through India, China, and Japan, and of course, Southeast Asia, and Tibet, and many other places, but he just mentions these three. Of course, this is in the 13th century, 14th, 13th century. It has been transmitted through, okay. So, the practices of his lifetime are the standard for his descendants. Even though he possessed the 32 marks and 80 minor marks, he certainly looked like an ordinary old monk and was no different from other people. In Buddhist legend, the Buddha has 32 marks. I don't know how old that legend is, but it was a kind of... There were...

[29:45]

certain characteristics that were put together to identify a superhuman person. And among them were webbed feet and the hands going down past the knees. I don't know all the 32 marks, but we don't pay much attention to them. Not important to us, but... If you're swimming, they would be. What? If you're swimming, they would be. If you're swimming, they would be. Mel? Yes. I was thinking about that when I first read it, and I was getting very disconcerted that my toe wasn't longer than the big toe here, and all these different little things. But then I thought that there's so many marks that that everybody's bound to have at least one and that it gave me some personal comfort that, you know, some mark of a Buddha and maybe not all of them together.

[31:00]

I don't know if that's based on anything other than my own desire to be a Buddha or not, but maybe so. Well, this kind of legend comes out of, I think, comes out of separation, you know? It comes out of... like Buddha is something apart from ordinary human being. That's where this kind of feeling comes from. So... I don't know exactly where the legend comes from, but it's... I think it comes from that feeling, you know, that Buddha is... Buddha is different. and has these certain kinds of characteristics which ordinary folks don't have. But Buddhism changed. And the mark of a Buddha is Buddha nature, not physical characteristics. And so everyone should be able to find that mark or that characteristic.

[32:07]

If everyone can't find that characteristic, then Buddhism is only for those people with web feed and long hands. But, so he says, even though he possessed the 32 marks and the 80 mind marks, he's giving that credit. He's not saying that's not so. He's saying, but even so, even though he certainly looked like an ordinary old monk. He was no different from other people. So, that's very clever. Therefore, after his appearance in the world, throughout the three times of the true dharma, the counterfeit dharma, and the present collapsed dharma, you know about the three times? There's this legend. that there are the three time periods after Buddha. The first 500 years was the time when people could actually practice Buddha's practice.

[33:11]

The strength of Buddha's practice lasted for 500 years. This is a prediction. And after that, people would no longer be able to, because they're so distant, distanced from Buddha, that It would be called the period of the counterfeit dharma, where people would practice something, but it wasn't the real thing. Then there was the third period of the collapsed dharma, Mapo, which fell just about the time of Dogen. The end of which was just about the time of Dogen. People were very worried about it. And some people said, there's no way that we can practice because this is the era of mapo, the third period.

[34:14]

And of course, Dogen said, don't worry about mapo, just keep practicing. And Shinran said, Well, there's no way that you can actually practice Buddhism in this day and age. So just chant the name of Buddha and ask to be born in pure land. So these are the kind of two poles that Japanese Buddhism fell into. One was Dogen's hard practice, pure practice, never mind about Mapo. And Shinran's, because it's Mapo, There's no way you can actually practice. And then there were the scholars in between who just studied Buddhism. So he's saying, therefore, after his appearance in the world throughout the three times of the true dharma, the counterfeit dharma, and the present collapsed dharma,

[35:14]

Those who emulate his teaching and conduct, model themselves on his deportment, used what he used, and each moment, while walking about, standing in place, sitting or lying down, do as the Buddha did. So this is what he considers Buddhist followers, people who practice what Buddha practiced. In Japan, Japanese Zen, one way of practicing is to imitate the teacher. It's a very common way to practice. You observe the teacher and you just practice what the teacher does in the same way the teacher does. And often there's very little instruction in Zen. And they expect the student to observe and practice. And if they say something once, they expect the student to remember it.

[36:16]

So that's a kind of practice that is very common. Suzuki Roshi used to say, sometimes you can't tell the teacher from the student. But that kind of practice is like apprenticeship, in a way. And when the student masters the teacher's dharma, or becomes exactly like the teacher, then the student moves out and progresses to developing his own way. That's very common. So the student at some point becomes independent and no longer imitates the teacher, but finds his own way after absorbing the teacher. And sometimes, in some of these cases, the teacher and the disciple become absorbed in each other.

[37:29]

There's one place where They're actually one person, and then two people. So, Buddha after Buddha, and ancestor after, I call it ancestor, I don't call it patriarch. Ancestor after ancestor have simply transmitted this so that the true Dharma is not extinguished. And this event clearly indicates this. Even though the method of expression, various stories, figures of speech, and words was different on more than 360 occasions during the 49 years when he preached, they are nothing more than the expression of this principle. So I take this principle to be as in the main case. Now what is this event?

[38:30]

Well, this event is the main case. If you come back to the beginning, he says, I am great earth, this is enlightenment. This event and this principle is what is enlightenment. So, this is next, is Keizan's taisho, or his commentary on the case. So, going back to the beginning, he says, the so-called I in the main case, right? The so-called I in the main case is not Shakyamuni Buddha. And Shakyamuni Buddha also comes from this I. So when he says, I and all beings, I is not me.

[39:48]

That's what he's saying here. The so-called I in the main case is not Shakyamuni Buddha, and Shakyamuni, but, maybe he should have said but, Shakyamuni Buddha also comes from this I. Not only does Shakyamuni come from it, but the Great Earth and beings also come from it. Just as when a large net is taken up, and all the many openings of the net are also taken up, when Shakyamuni Buddha was enlightened, the Great Earth and all beings were enlightened. Not just the Great Earth and beings, but all the Buddhas of the past, future, and present were also enlightened. So how does that happen? So he said, when I was enlightened, everything was enlightened at the same time, past, future and present. It's very interesting when he says, when you take up a net, the holes also come up. It's really nice.

[40:53]

Where do the holes come from? Where do the spaces come from? From the net. Yeah. Where does the net come from? From the eye. From the eye. Yeah, it comes from the eye. From the spaces. So the spaces and the net are both important. Both part of the net. So, the I, the so-called I in the main case, is not Shakyamuni Buddha. So he's not saying, when he says, I and all sentient beings, he's not talking about just himself. He's not referring to himself as the I. But it gets even more interesting. Not only does Shakyamuni come from it, but the great earth and beings also come from it.

[41:59]

So there's something that everything comes from, right? Just as when a large net is taken up, and all the many openings of the net are also taken up. When Shakyamuni Buddha was enlightened, the great earth and all beings were enlightened. So there's a net, right? A network. When one part of the net is there, the whole net is there. So when Shakyamuni is enlightened, all beings are enlightened, past, present and future. This is like the net of Indra Muni. All things are reflected in each knot, and each thing reflects all the other parts. Would it be fair to say that the past, present and future you can't have past, present and future. You can't have present without past and future.

[43:01]

Yeah, you can't have present without past and future. But there's something, you know, when we talk about past, present and future, there's continuous time and discontinuous time. There's always continuous time. And continuous time is what we call now. Because whenever you want to wake up to the present, you always say, now. And you say it at any time. You said now in the past, you say now in the present, and you can say now in the future. But whenever you say now, it's only just now. That's continuous time. It is just now. So past, present, and future are all included in present time. But then there's discontinuous time. Yesterday, today, tomorrow, one o'clock, two o'clock.

[44:04]

We divide time into pieces. But that's just our... that's the net that we lay over it. For example, Buddhas in the past and present and future are all also Yeah, even though they existed in past, present, and future. Or, you say past, future, and present, actually. I think he's referring to timelessness of the Dharma. Timelessness. Timelessness, yeah. Timelessness of the Dharma. Yeah, kalpa. So, Then he says, since this is so, do not think that it was just Shakyamuni Buddha who was enlightened. You must not see any Shakyamuni Buddha apart from the great earth and beings.

[45:05]

Even high mountains, rivers, and their myriad forms flourish in great abundance. None are left out of Gautama's eye pupil. This is the way Dogen talks, and Keizan talks like Dogen. Although they're quite different, the way they present their material. The I-pupil means enlightened I. Buddha's enlightened I. All of you here are also established in Gautama's I-pupil. Not only are you established in it, but rather it is enfolded within you. In other words, everything is established in enlightenment and it's enfolded within you. Not only are you established in it, rather, it is enfolded within you. Also, Gautama's eye pupil becomes the fleshly body. It becomes the whole body of each person, standing like an 80,000 foot precipice in each.

[46:09]

Therefore, do not think that from the past to the present, there was a bright eye pupil and distinct people. You are Gautama's eye pupil, and Gautama is the entirety of each of you. What he's saying here is that everyone is Shakyamuni Buddha. In our meal chant, we say, we pay homage to Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya Buddha. the Dharmakaya, Vairochana Buddha, Sambhogakaya, Lochana Buddha, and Nirmanakaya, Shakyamuni Buddha. Nirmanakaya means the one who is manifested. Kaya is like the source, which is ineffable. And Sambhogakaya is like the spirit of that of Buddha.

[47:10]

And nirmanakaya is the person that's manifest. Buddha nature is manifested as a person. So he says, Gautama is the entirety of you. In other words, each one of you is Buddha. So what we used to say in the original translation of that meal chant was, we used to say homage to the innumerable Shakyamuni Nirmanakaya Buddhas all over the world. That was our original translation. Then it got shortened to what it is. But that's the feeling. It means that

[48:14]

Each one has the possibility or the endowment of Shakyamuni Buddha. It doesn't mean that everyone is realized through nature, but everyone has the endowment to realize it. That's what I feel that he's saying here. Also, if it becomes the flesh of the body, it becomes the whole body of each person standing like an 80,000 foot precipice in each. What is that 80,000 foot precipice? It's kind of like untouchable, you know, it's like unattainable in a way. Something that's really hard to scale. And also unshakable. Yeah, also unshakable. So this Master Gensha said, the whole universe is the eye of a monk.

[49:17]

Where would you defecate? So then he goes on to say, if this is the way it is, what do you call this principle of enlightenment? Let me ask you, he's talking to the monks, let me ask you, monks, does Gautama become enlightened with you, or do you become enlightened with Gautama? This is, you know, refers to the statement that he made, I and all sentient beings become enlightened simultaneously. Do you become enlightened with him or does he become enlightened with you? That's the question. If you say that you become enlightened with Gautama or that Gautama becomes enlightened with you, this is not Gautama's enlightenment.

[50:21]

Therefore, this is not the principle of enlightenment. If you want an intimate understanding of enlightenment, you should get rid of you and Gautama at once and quickly understand this matter of I. I is the great earth and beings as and. This starts getting really, sounds like Dogen. It does sound like Dogen. That's a different translation. Yes. What does Clary say? Clary, I think does he say together or something? Instead of I am. It's not really as confusing to me. I was wondering what was the definition. Yeah. Well, what does he say altogether? Clary says together. together are neither one nor two.

[51:30]

Even so, I and together are neither one nor two. But then it's next sentence. Yeah. And your skin, flesh, bones and marrow are all together. See, together and and, right? But it's them, and the host inside the host is I. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's pretty good. of the same work, and it does it. Well, you see, this is the thing about translating. You think that all you have to do is transfer one. I know, but it doesn't work that way. So it's not easy to translate. especially when it gets into, you know, something as subtle as this.

[53:02]

This is very subtle thinking. And I think together it's easier to understand. Well, yes, but, you know, if you're familiar with Dogen, I think the and, because there's certain words like and, what, how, and it that are impersonal. If you ask a question, like you say, in this kind of subtle understanding, what is it? You'd think that that's a question. But actually, the answer is in the question. So if you want to know what is it, drop the question mark. And the sentence becomes, what is it?

[54:07]

So what becomes the subject? So here, and becomes the subject, right? And so you have this insignificant word that becomes the subject suddenly. We're not used to thinking that way. So together sounds very logical. But and is nutty, according to, you know, it's not, to have and as the subject is very strange. I wanted to say, maybe I'm trying to guess at what the point is here. And is like conjunction itself, it's like between objects, between beings. And is and, and I think that when he's saying, and is not I as the old fellow Gautama, and and is not beings or the great earth, and is the conjunction, which is, and so together would be less, might be more understandable, but less, because together is implying, is pointing us to these objects.

[55:19]

Right. Right. It's like a with, a withness. A what? junction with, withness, like a suchness. Yeah, more like that. Everything is with, everything else. But the together is implied in the and. The together is implied in the and. It's like the bandleader. It says and, but together is implied in the and. Together I think is a pronoun. That's why I'd be interested to know what these not together, so together is irrelevant. It couldn't be separate, in other words. It's just and. And is similar to as well as, and as well as is similar to together. Well, and usually means also, right? I don't know, like when she said the conjunction, I think

[56:23]

You know, the moment where there's a space between whatever's happening, where there's nothing. I mean, the and. We just put that word in there, and, to put some kind of meaning to the space that brings things together. It just kind of separates things. Yeah. And the word also means the same. Means what? Same. Same, yeah. There's a slightly different translation, I don't know, from kinetic motion. See, now here we go into some more subtle stuff, because and and I, he even throws away I. Right. Probably because there is no I. I mean, people are focusing on I. Well, I, it's not this I, right? It's not this I. Right.

[57:26]

So, I think we could probably get it from either a translation, you know. So we kind of have to read between the lines. So he says, if you want an intimate understanding, I'll start at the beginning of the paragraph, of enlightenment, you should get rid of you and Gautama at once and quickly understand this matter of I. I is the great earth and beings as and. And is not I. as the old fellow Gautama. So that's checking out both you and Gautama, which squares with clearing. Examine carefully, deliberate carefully, and clarify this I, capital I, and this and.

[58:29]

Even if you clarify the meaning of I, but you fail to clarify and, you lose a discerning I. So, together is okay too. Either way, it's just a different way of expression. But the meaning, I think, is not different. Is the writer trying to say here that whatever unites also separates? Whatever unites, whatever brings together also separates. That's right. That's the point. Is it the same or different? Is it separate or singular? That's also part of that. Well, let's go on a little bit.

[59:33]

This being so, if it is, I and and are neither identical nor different. But as you say, they're not, are they the same or are they different? Truthfully, your skin, flesh, bones, and marrow are totally and, or together, as Cleary says. The lord of the house is I, that's buddha nature, dharmakaya. It has nothing to do with skin, flesh, bones and marrow, nor has it anything to do with the four elements or the five aggregates. Ultimately, if you wish to know the undying person in the hermitage, is it not something separate from this present skin bag?" Cleary says, it is not.

[60:34]

I think he says the opposite. He says, it is not this present person. He says, how could it be apart from the skin bag? Yeah. So it's just the opposite, right? Yeah. It seems like he contradicts himself there in that paragraph, you know? It's like saying, Uh, I and and are neither identical nor different. Truly your skin, flesh, bones, and marrow are totally and the Lord of the houses. I, it has nothing to do with the skin flesh. It separates. It seems like as something apart and different from skin, flesh, bones, four elements, five aggregates. And then it continues to separate, it seems, with, if you wish to know the undying person and the hermitage, is it not something separate from this present skin bag?

[61:39]

It seems like... I'm clearly saying the opposite. You're saying it is not. So it's a little confusing here. Kashmir Shaivism, they say the opposite thing. They're really saying the same thing. And it's like both are true, just, you know, just turning it around. That's right. Whichever side you say is the same thing. You can say, is it not something separate? Yes, it is not something separate. That's right. Because it is and it isn't. That's the point. Is it identical or is it different? That's the question, as he states here. This being so, I and and are neither identical nor different.

[62:45]

Is it separate? Yes. No. Yes and no. So we say, not one and not two. That's the classical way of expressing it. If you say it's one, that's not right. If you say it's two, that's not right. So it's not one, not two. Who knows what? Yeah, that's right. Who knows what? Well, in language, you have to make the split. Whenever you're speaking, you have to make this creative duality.

[64:02]

But you have to understand that's what you're doing. Then you can speak. So sometimes you talk about the phenomenal side, sometimes you talk about the not-phenomenal side. Sometimes you talk about oneness, sometimes you talk about twoness. But it's not one or two. And yet, it includes one, and it includes two. But you can say it is one or two at that time when you're talking about that particular aspect. That's right. You can say it's one, because one includes two. You can say it's two, because your two includes one. But not everybody's one includes two, and not everybody's two includes one. Does the dog have Buddha nature? No. You can only say the dog has no buddha nature when it includes buddha nature. You can only say yes when it includes no.

[65:06]

So your yes and your no have to be bigger than just yes and no. Well, hoping that my yes and no are bigger than yes and no, it seems to me that in this paragraph, though, he's saying that Our skin, flesh, bones, the phenomenal world is the and, is the holes in the nest. Right? So that's that. And the I, the Lord of the house, is none of that and has nothing to do with that. I mean, given that, of course, that's how it expresses itself. But that there is this source, this I, that has nothing to do with this bag of bones. That's right. That's independent of this bag of bones. Right. You're right. That's right. So that's an interesting kind of thing. He's saying that there's something that's independent of this bag of bones, but this bag of bones depends on it. And this is like Tozan's poem, when Tozan was, Dongshan was crossing the stream, you know, and he saw his reflection in the stream and he said, now as I go on, this is his poem, you know, everywhere I turn I meet myself.

[66:30]

And it is what I am, but I am not it. it's what I am, but I'm not. In other words, it actually is you. So, let's go on to the next paragraph. Although the seasons change and the mountains, rivers, and Great Earth are different over time, you should realize that because this is the old fellow Gautama's raising his eyebrows and blinking his eyes, all this is that body standing independently and openly within the myriad things. It brushes aside the myriad things and does not brush aside the myriad things.

[67:31]

Zen Master Fa Yen said, you cannot say whether it brushes aside or does not brush aside. Zen Master Ti Tsong said, what do you mean by humiliate things? So everything is questioned here. Nothing is taken for granted, actually. So it seems like he's saying there's one thing, this I, there's one thing, and all things are expressions of this one thing, which is always changing and never has any identifiable mark or anything that you can grasp. But if you want to know it, It's wherever you touch, wherever you are. But there's nothing stable about it, and yet it's completely still.

[68:34]

So it's very mysterious. So it can't be really expressed, you know, exactly. But we can express it through our activity, but we can't explain it. And it's beyond our complete understanding. I'm reminded of Hoover's I and Thou here. distinguishes? Well, it differentiates I and Thou from I and It. And so when you were talking about the lesson, you said, I hesitate to bring another pronoun back in. It's everywhere but nowhere. And I just was interested in the way, the difference between the focus in the Buddhist perspective is

[69:39]

singular while focusing the Hebrew perspective is on the relational aspect, even though I feel like it's talking about the same perspective or the same subject. Well, it's neither singular nor relational. Thank you. But yet it's both. But yet we can talk about it, the singular aspect and the relational aspect. But if you try and separate them, then you fall into the duality. So in order to keep the understanding and the practice pure, you don't fall into the duality. So that's what makes it kind of difficult. That's why we have koans. Because the koan is kind of like You know, you want to fall into this side, and you want to fall into this side, but if you fall into one side or the other, you lose the vitality or the tension of the koan, of your mind, which doesn't fall into oneness or twoness.

[70:59]

I just find it so... Difficulty happens with turning it into words. As soon as the discussion starts, the thing for me starts to break apart. I feel it, and I have a sense of it, and then as soon as the discrimination starts, I become a fossil. Well, that's good. That's why it's a koan. Because if it does that to you, then it's good that you have that problem. Well, you can't hold it. But how do you, the thing is, what's your attitude? That's the important point. Up or down? What? Nothing, I just said up or down. What is your attitude? I think that's a great koan.

[72:11]

The whole universe is the eye of a monk. Where will you defecate? How will you eat? How will you walk? How do you treat everything? Great koan. It's Genjo Koan. So, therefore, he says, practice fully and sufficiently, develop full mastery and clarify both Gotama's enlightenment and your own as well. You should figure it out by inspecting this case in detail. I don't know if figured out is right. Yeah, you should understand your own enlightenment.

[73:15]

I want you all to see this story closely and be able to explain it. Letting the explanation flow from your own heart. That's good. Not borrowing the words of another. On the next day, set aside for explanations. Clary doesn't have that. I want you to present your understanding with a decisive word. And he gives his verse. This mountain monk would like to say a few humble words about this case. Would you like to listen? A splendid branch issues from the old plum tree. In time, obstructing thorns flourish everywhere. And Clary says, thorns come forth at the same time. So the word time is there, but you have to kind of decide which time it is when you're translating. Well, is figuring it out the same as understanding it?

[74:18]

Well, I don't know if figuring it out is quite right. You can figure out something, but... I think it's a curiosity, because I recall the query translated apricot tree. Yeah, apricot. Well, that's right. The book says plum, and I just thought that was curious. You don't find it here? Well, no. I translated things with cause, and he says, oh, it's apricot. And then some other thing says, oh, it's plum. But this plum is, you know, Dogen has a fascicle, baika, plum blossoms. And this is obviously from that fascicle, this line. A splendid branch issues from the old plum tree. Plum tree is like enlightenment. You know, like the source of enlightenment.

[75:20]

Apricot also, but plum is more... Would I make it clear? How could he have made it out? No, I don't know. But sometimes I think in the characters Plum looks like Apricot. Oh, really? There's something there. Because I remember running across this problem before. Apricot, just yellow Plum? Maybe, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Branch issues from the old apricot plum tree. And in time, this time or some other time.

[76:23]

Obstructing thorns flourish everywhere. Obstructing thorns are like, what? Yeah. Diversity. Yeah, diversity, that's good. There are thorns on palm trees? They're plums. They're thorns on lemon trees. What did you put lemons into this for? For us. You want an answer? This plum tree has thorns. This is not a usual palm tree. Well, Bill, what is this? Is this a monastic, part of the monastic schedule, a day set aside for explanation?

[77:30]

Well, I don't know what that means exactly, but I would say that You know, it's possible that he had his monks come and try to express their understanding. That's what he means by explanation. Express your understanding of what this is about. I think we are looking at it as whenever truth is expressed, there is always misunderstanding. Whenever the truth is expressed, there's always misunderstanding. Yeah, I think that's... Just a thought. Yeah. I have a suggestion. What if next week, those who wanted to made their version of a verse... Of a what? Of a verse. Yeah. That's a good idea.

[78:43]

It better be. You express your misunderstanding. Yeah, that's a good idea. If anybody wants to write their own gatha, their own verse, two lines. On this week's case? Yeah, on this week's case. Yeah, I did this, at the end I wrote a verse, at the very end. I wrote a verse, I said, you know, I should, after giving this class, you know, I said I should write some verse, you know. So, everybody said, what is it? What did you write? I said, okay. So this is what I wrote at the end of the class. In the still dark night, a stone woman over and over gives birth to a mischievous wooden boy with a long nose who continuously sits with his legs in the glowing fire.

[79:48]

Heaven only knows how long this foolish song and dance will go on. Is that two lines? You have to do two lines. Do as I say, not as I do. Will you read it again? Huh? Read it again. It probably makes more sense after you've studied this whole thing longer, but... In the still dark night, a stone woman over and over gives birth to a mischievous wooden boy with a long nose who continuously sits with his legs in a glowing fire. Heaven only knows how long this foolish song and dance will go on. I'll read it again at the end. So next time we'll do Mahakasyapa, which is just the next page.

[80:55]

And this is the transmission story from Shakyamuni to Mahakasyapa. So Shakyamuni, you know, his transmission was from I. I. Capital I? Or And? It's from And. But, you know, the legend goes, Buddhas before Buddha. Seven Buddhas before Buddha. Hundreds of Buddhas before Buddha. But the link had been lost. He said, oh, I just discovered this path that many Buddhas had gone down. And so he had to re-establish for himself, whereas the others all had teachers. Shakyamuni. Shakyamuni had to reestablish from scratch.

[82:03]

Of course, we all have to establish from scratch with teachers. So a teacher just helps us to establish our practice from scratch, our understanding. And that's the thing about the transmission, is that even though we say transmission, there's nothing transmitted. So there's nothing that the teacher says, psst, psst, psst. So, but it's recognition. Transmission means recognition. One recognizes the other. So, and that comes out in this case of Mahakasyapa and Shakyamuni, the recognition. and Buddha holds up the flower and Mahakasyapa smiles in recognition and then Shakyamuni recognizes his understanding.

[83:19]

So that will be next time. So please read that second case. And bring your two lines. We'll do that. Be kind to us.

[83:41]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ