Good afternoon. Look, I'm down to only two books this time. Oh, this postcard, which is a reminder of the 32 marks of the Buddha. Do you want to see the postcard again? Okay. This was in a previous class, but here it is. This was given to me by a long-time guest who had taken a vacation in Myanmar. Brought me that postcard and a statue. So yeah down to only two books this time. I didn't bring any koan collections although I'm going to mention a couple and mostly for those of you I see a couple of new faces mostly we have been using the excellent translation and commentaries by Bill Porter, Red Pine, and the many Chinese commentators that he read and digested to create this amazing book on the Diamond Sutra, and his own very good translation from Sanskrit and Chinese.

[01:15]

I have also been studying other translations, and the more I study other translations, the more appreciation I have for Red Pine's translation. And other commentaries, including Musang's, especially, which I have not brought with me today, and Thich Nhat Hanh's, and Dr. Edward Kanzes. So, using Red Pine's translation, and it seems to have been a popular thing, so we're going to keep doing it. Story time. Just reading the chapter, and... saying and discussing a little bit about this chapter. And there are 32 chapters, which we said in the first class relate to the 32 marks of the Buddha, the 32 physical marks. And we're up to chapter 26. Subuti, what do you think?

[02:19]

Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the possession of attributes? No, indeed, Bhagavan. As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. The Buddha said, well done, Suburi, well done. So it is, Suburi, it is as you claim. The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. And why not? Suburi, if the Tathagata could be seen by means of the possession of attributes, a universal king would be a Tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. The Venerable Sabuddhi said to the Buddha, As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. On that occasion, the Buddha then spoke this Gata, Who looks for me in form, who seeks me in a voice, indulges in wasted effort, such people see me not.

[03:21]

Can somebody please close the back door? I feel like we're intruding on the guest tea. Thank you. So we mentioned this in the last class, and that's why the postcard is going around. Even the possession of the 32 marks is not good enough. Or, meaning someone and thinking, wow, what a wonderful, charismatic teacher. Is that good enough? So, this is a very good question. The 32 marks, anyway, we talked about that, is something that was believed by many people. But it was also said by the Buddha that the 32 marks could also be possessed by a wheel-turning king, Chakravartin.

[04:32]

And elsewhere it says Mara, the tempter, also possesses the 32 marks. That's why he can be so tricky. So you might see someone and think that's the Buddha or that's the perfect teacher and be completely deluded. So over and over, the sutra is asking us to look past, look past, see deeply. This is the fourth time in the sutra that the Buddha has asked this question of Subuddhi in this ongoing, in some cases, pretty repetitive practice discussion that the Buddha and Subuddhi are having here. comes up in chapter 5, 13, 20, and here again in 26. So what's the difference? Well, some people might say it's Sabuti's understanding that is shifting. I mentioned this in the last class as well.

[05:35]

As the sutra is going along, Sabuti's vision, Sabuti's understanding is changing from that of a Shravaka, a voice hearer, a Nikaya monk, to a a bodhisattva a bodhisattva in training so the tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes and why not? Siburi if the tathagata could be seen by means of the possession of attributes a universal king would be a tathagata so this is a pointing to the fact that over and over again the sutra says anything that's subject to creation and destruction is not reliable. Attributes are not reliable. Even in the three bodies of Buddha, the nirmanakaya, the physical body, and the sambhogakaya, the merit body, are still...

[06:47]

Still, they are also subject to creation and destruction. So, yes, please. I just have a question about that. Yes. If I can articulate it. So, let's see. I just under the impression that the 32 marks of the body, the emphasis on that was... happening in conjunction with the rise in devotionalism. Here's something we can look at and praise. Yes. We bow down to. And I was also in the impression that the Diamond Sutra was a text that was a very devotional text. Yes. But here it's negating the 32 marks. It's saying, don't trust the 32 marks. Yes. Tell me a little bit about how those fit together or don't fit together. Anybody want to offer anything? That's a great question.

[07:48]

I love it. Yeah? Anybody? You just said that there's 32 chapters and the sutra is negating itself. And the whole sutra is about negating itself. The whole sutra is about this, you know, as I mentioned, maybe in class number two, This A does not equal A, therefore A equals A. Or, as some Chinese monk put it so poetically, when or before I started practicing, mountains were mountains. Then, when I started practicing, mountains were no longer mountains. And now that I've been practicing for a while, mountains are mountains. So, it's that understanding. the sutra over and over again is urging us to open our prajna eye or as Thich Nhat Hanh says, learn to see with the eyes of interbeing.

[08:55]

This is how I see it. Prajnaparamita literature, the Diamond Sutra, the Heart Sutra, the Prajnaparamita literature is helping us, encouraging us, urging us maybe to see the emptiness in all things, to see that all things are devoid of own being. They don't have a separate existence. What does that do to the devotionalism, in my opinion? Nothing at all. So I feel like the sutra is saying, come on, come on with the devotionalism. That must be included. That must be included. The Subhuti is very devoted to the Buddha. That's how the sutra starts. Subhuti is studying the Buddha, his physical body, and saying, I want what he's got. How are you doing that? How are you doing that? Yeah. So the devotional practice, I think, is not left behind. But it's married to the prajna, the wisdom practice.

[10:00]

The wisdom and compassion come up together. And I feel like the sutra really... Well, it sort of comes down on the wisdom side, for sure. I mean, the Lotus Sutra, for example, is much more devotional, and the Vimalakirti Sutra is a lot funnier. And this is kind of relentlessly, relentlessly, A equals A. A does not equal A, therefore A equals A, over and over again. But I feel like the devotionalism is there. Actually, this ties to, I wanted to say, I didn't bring the koans, but... Can't the Tathagata be seen by means of his attributes? Is there a Buddha there? Brings up for me a very, very famous koan. Our guy Zhao Zhou, once again, he keeps showing up. A monk asks him, does a dog have Buddha nature?

[11:02]

If everything is Buddha nature, does a dog have Buddha nature? And Zhao Zhou says, what? He says, moot. No. He says, no. That's case number one in the Mumonkan, which is the collection, the Gala's Gate, that the Rinzai Zen students study, especially. Case number one, Zhao Zhao says, no. Mu. And they study that koan a lot. They don't just study it. They cook with it. They burn with it. However, in the Book of Serenity, the Shoyu Roku... which is a collection of mostly Soto teachings, in the Book of Serenity, case number 18, he says no, he also says yes. He says both. He says both. On one occasion, he says yes. On another occasion, he says no. It depended on the student asking.

[12:05]

So... Can the Tathagata be seen by means of his attributes? Yes. No. So I think it depended on the student asking. If the student was attached to form, he said no. If the student was attached to emptiness, he said yeah. Makes sense, in a way. The commentary in the Book of Serenity says He uses poison to cure poisoning. It's just what we talked about over and over again, skill and means, skillful means. So this Tathagata, excuse me, the Gata, not the Tathagata, the Gata at the end, who looks for me in form, who seeks me in a voice, indulges in wasted effort, such people see me not. That's pretty heavy to... summarize just that chapter.

[13:08]

And some commentators think that that actually is a good summary for the whole sutra. You know, like Dr. Kansa said, there's a lot of support for thinking. It's a little mixed up here and there. A lot of interpolations and things just kind of added in. So that's a lot for just that short chapter. And it could possibly be... Agatha for the entire sutra, actually. Yeah, yeah, I agree. Although, I think if Subudhi was Jiaojo's student, Subudhi would get, I think so, yeah. I think it does tend to come down on that side overall. But yes, I agree with you.

[14:10]

I agree with you. The Buddha wants Subhuti and he wants us to see the real Tathagata. Okay? So in the last class, in chapter 18, we talked about the five eyes. And remember, the physical eye is mentioned first. So where is the real Tathagata? This Gata at the end. can be thought of as a riddle. Who looks for me in form? Who seeks me in a voice? Indulges in wasted effort? Such people see me not. What is the Buddha's real body? Well, last class, Jacqueline said, the Dharmakaya. Undifferentiated reality. The dustness of all things. Or Thich Nhat Hanh might say, interbeing. Today, I have... I would like to offer you my own answer to the riddle.

[15:12]

Okay? It's not my own. I didn't cook it up on my own. I've been studying all these commentaries. The Buddha's body, the Buddha's real body, is not separate from our real body. That's what I'm going to say. Thich Nhat Hanh says, in light of the Diamond Sutra, we should not identify the body of 32 marks with the Buddha. In fact, we should make just as great an effort to look for the Buddha where the 32 marks are absent, in stagnant water and in beggars who have leprosy. When we can see the Buddha in these kinds of places, we have a signless view of the Buddha. And people used to say about Suzuki Roshi all the time, he could see the Buddha in everyone.

[16:15]

Many, many people said that about Suzuki Roshi, or he could see the Buddha in me when I couldn't see it. When I could not see the Buddha in myself, I felt like Suzuki Roshi could see it. Chapter 27. Subuti, what do you think? Was it due to the possession of attributes that the Tathagata realized unexcelled perfect enlightenment? Subuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Subhuti, it could not have been due to the possession of attributes that the Tathagata realized unexcelled perfect enlightenment. Furthermore, Subhuti, someone may claim those who set forth on the Bodhisattva path announced the destruction or the end of some dharma. Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Those who set forth on the Bodhisattva path do not announce the destruction or the end of any dharma. So, here, I don't have a whole lot to say about Chapter 27, actually.

[17:19]

It's just some more reinforcement of not holding on to any practice. No getting caught by any practice. Those who set forth on the Bodhisattva path, that's us. I think so. I think so. we don't make any claims. We're not making any particular claims. Koto Sawaki, 20th century Zen master, he used to say, Zen practice is good for nothing. And until you realize it's good for nothing, it's really good for nothing. No Dharma has ever come into being, will come into being, or is now coming into being at all. This is, we chant every day, right?

[18:21]

We chant this every day. Shariputra, all dharmas are marked by emptiness, right? They neither arise nor cease, are neither defiled nor pure, neither increase nor decrease. So this is pointing to a middle way between being and non-being. Does a dog have Buddha nature? Yes. Does the dog have to do nature? No. Embrace both. Chapter 28. Furthermore, Siburi, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are grains of sand in the Ganges and covered them with the seven jewels... and gave them as a gift to the Tathagadas, the Arhats, the fully enlightened ones, and a Bodhisattva gained an acceptance of the selfless, birthless nature of dharmas.

[19:21]

The body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably infinitely greater. And yet, Subhuti, this fearless Bodhisattva would not obtain a body of merit. The Venerable Subuti said, but surely, Bhagavan, this Bodhisattva would obtain a body of merit. The Buddha replied, they would, Subuti, but without grasping it. Thus is it called obtaining. I think chapter 28 is the heart of the Diamond Sutra in many ways. Or, as I said in previous classes, if you want to think of it as orchestral music, this is the big part. crescendo of the final movement just before the end and then the following chapters are kind of decrescendo and what coda and I don't know the terms in classical music but this is kind of big summation this is coming to this practice

[20:33]

that I brought up before, the tolerance of birthlessness. I think I should read the whole chapter again. Furthermore, Siburi, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are grains of sand in the Ganges and covered them with the seven jewels... and gave them as a gift to the Tathagadas, the Arhats, the fully enlightened ones, and a Bodhisattva gained an acceptance of the selfless, birthless nature of dharmas. The body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably infinitely greater. And yet, Subhuti, this fearless Bodhisattva would not obtain a body of merit. The Venerable Subhuti said, But surely, Bhagavan, this Bodhisattva would obtain a body of merit. The Buddha replied, They would subuti, but without grasping it. Thus is it called obtaining. So, this is, I think the beginning of it is very familiar.

[21:36]

If you've hung in there, you Diamond Sutra loyalists, if you've hung in there for the whole six classes, you're like, oh yeah, it's the seven jewels again. It's the grains of sand in the River Ganges again. You know, does it say that I write to my notes that How many times this one has come up? No, I did not. But, you know, it sounds familiar, right? Another repetition about this practice offering, okay? Offering, Dhanaparamita, very, very essential to this sutra, the practice of Dhanaparamita, very crucial to this sutra, how we practice offering. And, you know, again, it's like I said before, Christmas morning times a thousand, again, you know, uh, whatever, as many worlds as dark grains of sand and these seven jewels that we talked about before and gave them as a gift here. Wow, what a gift. This is amazing. And a bodhisattva gained an acceptance of the selfless, birthless nature of dharmas.

[22:42]

So this is a little different because previously, elsewhere in the sutra, they compare this these offerings, these practices of offering, usually is comparing, giving some amazing material gift, like seven jewels, covering as many as there are sands of grain, grains of sand in the Ganges, comparing that to usually memorizing or teaching and teaching a single four-line gata of the sutra, right? They say that a lot. It says that a lot in the sutra, but this is different. It says it's explicitly about the tolerance of birthlessness. Gain and acceptance of the selfless, birthless nature of dharmas, which is pretty heavy, actually. To see into the emptiness of all created things is kind of tough. Oh, that includes me.

[23:46]

That includes my idea of who I am. We said... I think it was in the last class. You want to get at somebody? Just go for who they think they are. You know? Ow! No! That's too close. No. The selfless, birthless nature of all dharmas. All dharmas. To tolerate that, you know, red pine uses the word trauma. It's traumatic. It's actually traumatic. It's very difficult. Sitting... A seven-day seshin is very difficult, just staying present over and over and over again with whatever comes up. It's very difficult. This is what we're practicing, actually, in my opinion. So, remember the Lotus Sutra talking about the three gifts that bodhisattvas give, right? Material goods, just the seven jewels, And then teaching, that's the four-line gatha.

[24:51]

And the third is non-fear. Bodhisattvas give non-fear. And gaining an acceptance of the selfless, birthless nature of all dharmas takes tremendous courage. And cultivating that courage, you give that gift. You're giving the gift of non-fear. So dhana, the practice of giving, And the practice of patience, tolerance, kshanti, and prajna, seeing into the birthless nature of all things, are merged here. They're merged in the big crescendo in the sutra. This is like the whole teaching kind of coming into a singularity. Bill Porter says, the non-attainment of this body, or the attainment of this no body, begins and ends with the Bodhisattva's resolution to liberate all beings.

[25:57]

And such a resolution only works if it is free of perceptions of liberator, liberated, and liberation. So this circles back to the beginning of the sutra. This is like chapter 3 again. And you could... compare this to the Heart Sutra again. With nothing to attain, a bodhisattva relies on Prajnaparamita, and thus the mind is without hindrance. Without hindrance, there is no fear. Far beyond all inverted views, one realizes nirvana. I say just that in some ways the Daimha Sutra is more explicit in the implications. in the Heart Sutra, but it's the same sentiment. Yes? What is meant by birthlessness? That ultimately nothing arises and nothing ceases because nothing has an individual existence.

[27:04]

Because nothing at all has an individual existence, Nothing arises and nothing ceases. What exists is the great ocean. The great ocean of the Dharmakaya, where there's waves. We can see that's a wave. It's gone. Wait, there's a wave over there. It's gone. That's all. In that sense, there's like a nerve of the wave and it ceases. Yeah. So, before I started practicing, Mountains were mountains. Then when I started practicing, mountains were no longer mountains. Now that I've been practicing for a while, mountains are mountains again. So, yes. Also, form is form. And emptiness is emptiness. So, we have to see both. We have to embrace both. This is called the two truths. Yeah.

[28:09]

Uh... Okay. Chapter 29. Furthermore, Suburi, if anyone should claim that the Tathagata goes or comes or stands or sits or lies on a bed, Suburi, they do not understand the meaning of my words. And why not? Suburi, those who are called Tathagatas do not go anywhere, nor do they come from anywhere. Thus are they called Tathagadas, Arhas, fully enlightened ones. Okay, so I told Hiro-san I didn't need a flip chart. But if I had a flip chart, I guess I could have written on the flip chart. This is a little bit of wordplay in Sanskrit going on here. It's two different parsings of the word Tathagada, which is commonly understood. There's Thus, T-A-T-H-A, tata, thus.

[29:11]

And come, agata, tata hyphen T-A-T-H-A hyphen A-G-A-T-A, thus come. This is usual translation of tathagata, the thus come one. But there's also T-A-T-H-A hyphen G-A-T-A, gata. as in the Heart Sutra, Gathe, Gathe, Paragathe, Parasam Gathe, Bodhis Vaha, gone. Thus gone. So there's actually two ways to understand Tathagata. Usually people understand as thus come. Usually people think, you know, the apparition body, thus come, the Buddha's appearance among a suffering world, that's pretty good news. And like you said, there's a great deal of devotion to that.

[30:14]

There's like a great deal of gratitude. And so I think that most Buddhas, most Buddhists prefer to emphasize the Buddha's compassion and liberative, his great vow, come into the suffering world and help us. So we say, thus come. He comes into the world. But thus gone refers to the Buddha's transcendence of the physical body, the nirmanakaya, and the realization of the reward body, the sambhogakaya. But the real body, the dharmakaya, doesn't go or come at all. We chant that in the Suzuki Roshi Memorial, right? in the pure Dharmakaya. There's no coming or going. And one of these Chinese commentators, Qi Fu, says, It was said by the Tathagata, it was said that the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of attributes, and yet he does not lack attributes.

[31:34]

attributes are basically the appearance of dharmas. You could say the waves on the ocean, you know, the appearance. This does not mean to get rid of appearances, only to remain detached from dharmas. This means that when we see that dharmas have no self and can accept that dharmas have no self, prajna will appear. That's when we learn, we begin to learn to see with the eyes of interbeing. Chapter 30. Furthermore, Subuti, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are specks of dust in a billion world universe and by an expenditure of limitless energy ground them into a multitude of atoms, Subuti, what do you think? Would there be a great multitude of atoms? Subuti replied,

[32:38]

So there would, Bhagavan. So there would, Sugata. There would be a great multitude of atoms. And why? If a great multitude of atoms existed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a multitude of atoms. And why? Bhagavan, this multitude of atoms of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata to be no multitude. Thus is it called a multitude of atoms. Also, Bhagavan, this billion world universe of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata to be no universe. Thus is it called a billion world universe. And how so? Bhagavan, if a universe existed, attachment to an entity would exist. But whenever the Tathagata speaks of attachment to an entity, the Tathagata speaks of it as no attachment. Thus is it called attachment to an entity. The Buddha said, Subuddhi, attachment to an entity, is inexplainable and inexpressible, for it is neither a dharma nor no dharma.

[33:44]

Foolish people, though, are attached. So, this is kind of interesting in the light of modern physics. This is, in some ways, you could, and actually, full disclosure, People have written whole books about Buddha's cosmological view and the quantum universe. This is that, actually. Take the whole world. They knew about atoms. They knew about atoms, the smallest unit of matter. And beyond that, the quantum universe, how all the tiniest little particles are actually one thing. universe. And how the one universe is all the tiniest little particles. This harmony of difference and equality. Yes.

[34:48]

One, two. I have a question about the refrain that continues through Diamond Sutra. There is Greg. Because there's Greg, there is no Greg. My question, I understand that there's form, but really, in truth, there's really nothing there. Thus, my question is around the word thus, or the song translates it as therefore. Thus or therefore, we call it blank. And that phrasing, it makes it sound causal. And that, I'm really confused. Can you explain? Because my understanding is that it's not causal. It's because there's something, there's not something. And for that reason, we call it something. I don't see why there's that causal message.

[35:55]

Yes. First of all, what does causal mean? a relationship, like just because there's nothing, because it's nothing, we call it Greg. We call it Greg. Wasn't that just talking about the physical world? Like, ah, you're just like, ah, so Greg is great physically, but it's only talking about physical. Right? Yeah. Exactly. The last question I've been asked in private, because it's . So I have been reading the third turning of the wheel, which is this commentary on . And so in that, there's always talk about this clear crystal, which is like . So it's clear crystal.

[36:55]

Or if you have like a blue color, then you might think it's a sapphire. But actually it's just a clear crystal. So I came upon this thing where Rev says, the clear crystal is the bank of the colorism. And that really surprised me, because I wanted to ask Greg about it. And now when she said thus, there is Greg. This comes to mind, which is... Would you say that? The clear crystal is chlorism, then we can say that. Yeah, I would say that. That's your answer, yeah. Yep. You're asking me, would I say that? And my answer is yes, I would say that. So I guess I'm used to thinking of the unconditioned and not being subject to causes and conditions, and therefore we wouldn't say that. We wouldn't say... Because this is there, this other thing is there.

[38:01]

Oh, yeah, right. But you weren't talking about the unconditioned, you were talking about a clear crystal. Well, yes, I was thinking of a clear crystal as being unconditioned, is that not? Oh, okay, okay. Because here's the thing. All of it is our ideas. It's all views. atoms, billion world universe, clear crystal, Greg, May, all of it. This you're just telling us is all based on views. It's all based on assumptions. So is it dependently co-arisen? It's all dependently co-arisen. So we're saying this thing that we can't talk about, we're going to say it depends on what reason?

[39:05]

I don't know. I can't talk about it. Yeah. I don't know. I haven't got anything to say about that. But maybe Ruben does. We're talking about the word of thus and therefore. I think that's just one of those things that's like transitive literally but doesn't really encapsulate the nuances that's kind of really is kind of being said. Like in my head, whenever you say that, I just up this to and. Like, you are and you're not. Or you are and you're not at the same time. You know, therefore. I skipped using the word therefore, which implies causality. And I think that's kind of more how I understand it is, you know, it's not, there's no causality, it's just both at the same time.

[40:08]

That's what I have for and works better for me. It's going beyond logic. The sutra is going beyond logic. Prajna, actually the word, means before knowing. So it's pointing to trying to take us to what's beyond knowing, before knowing, intuitive wisdom. So, yeah, causality seems to be implied where there's no causality that makes any sense from a logical framework because it's going beyond logic. It's transcending that. It's transcending any ideas we can have about any of it. So that's why I say I'm okay with saying, That's all dependently co-arisen. The part, you know, Mel talked about, Suzuki Roshi talking about the blank movie screen, that I can't talk about. That I cannot talk about. But the sutra is trying to help us to come to an understanding that helps us to let go of our attachment to views, all views, all views.

[41:21]

So we have an appreciation. As Suzuki Roshi said, there's an appreciation for the blank movie screen. And that's actually helping us to suffer less, in my opinion. Chapter 31. And how so? Suburi, if someone should claim that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self... or that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a being, a view of a life, or a view of a soul, Subhuti, would such a claim be true? Subhuti said, No indeed, Bhagavan, no indeed, Sugata, such a claim would not be true. And why not? Bhagavan, when the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, the Tathagata speaks of it as no view. Thus is it called a view of a self. The Buddha said, Indeed, Subuddhi, so it is. Those who set forth on the Bodhisattva path know, see, and believe all dharmas, but know, see, and believe them without being attached to the perception of a dharma.

[42:30]

And why not? The perception of a dharma, Subuddhi, the perception of a dharma, is said by the Tathagata to be no perception. Thus is it called the perception of a dharma. So this is kind of a summing up. Nothing is real. Don't get excited about it. You're okay. The Buddha is kind of approving of Subuddhi's understanding. Why not, Bhagavan? When the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, the Tathagata speaks of it as no view. Thus is it called a view of a self. Buddha says, indeed, Subuddhi, so it is. Yes? Yes, of course.

[43:38]

Of course. That's why I'm probably comfortable... That's why, yeah, when Rev says that's all dependently co-arisen, yes, dharmas are dependently co-arisen. I think when the Buddha woke up, what he woke up to was dependent origination. All things in the world are dependently arising. Yes? So what I'm interested in is how two people talking to each other, right? And he's telling all this stuff. But this guy's alone in the book. He was talking to him. He said, it's okay. It's not real. Why did he have to tell him that? Because my thinking is people who have families. And I just think it's kind of confusing. You want to hold on to what you have in this life because you love people. This comes up a lot.

[44:40]

This is a really good question. It comes up a lot. One of the most commonly misunderstood or misconstrued teachings in Buddhism is non-attachment. Well, I'm not supposed to be attached, but I love my wife. I love my family. I'm very attached. Of course. What happens to strong emotional bonds? Nothing. When the Buddha died, his disciples wept like crazy. And we are family. We are family. And we take refuge in that. That's important. That's important. The Buddha is just trying to help Sabuti and us to not be blinded by our perceptions. The Prajnaparamita literature

[45:45]

Perfection of wisdom. The wisdom I sees through delusion. The wisdom I sees delusion is not caught by it. That doesn't mean anything happens to strong emotional bonds. It's just you have greater freedom, greater perspective. You can still have strong emotional bonds. No problem. um it's our perceptions that blind us that's all yes i thought of less sensitive that time the perception of the dharma i was thinking i was talking outside there's there's and there's like leaves to the plants yes one leaf is a dharma yes and um

[46:46]

so we can see that the whole tree is growing the so and that's it and so the tree it's on the first part of the tree and uh... it was three in a way but still we can say that the first to me that's just so we can so The leaf is not the leaf, because it's a tree, and the tree depends on the earth, and so it's all. But you can still say, the leaf is the leaf. For the sake of expediency, we definitely can still say, the leaf is the leaf, and we're okay with that. It's just a question of not being caught by it, not being caught by our delusions. If you want to read a good book about delusions, I can recommend a book that a friend of mine recommended to me, and I liked it so much, I bought it for the library.

[47:53]

It's by this guy, David McRaney. It's called You Are Not So Smart. Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself. In the introduction, he says... You think you know how the world works, but you really don't. You move through life, forming opinions and cobbling together a story about who you are and why you did the things you did, leading up to reading this sentence, and taken as a whole, it seems real. So it's a lot of fun to read and just see yourself over and over in this book. You Are Not So Smart. It's called You Are Not So Smart. He also wrote a sequel called Now You Are Less Dumb. Oh. They're both in the library. He's a person who writes about contemporary research in psychology. And he said the book is about cognitive biases, heuristics, which are like mental shortcuts, and logical fallacies.

[49:00]

And speaking of cognitive biases, heuristics, and logical fallacies, he says, these are components of your mind, like organs in your body. which under the best conditions serve you well. Life, unfortunately, isn't always lived under the best conditions. Their predictability and dependability have kept confidence men, magicians, advertisers, psychics, and peddlers of all manner of pseudoscientific remedies in business for centuries. And I would also add politicians. So, Vasubandhu. the great Indian philosopher, says about this chapter. This is not the negation of atoms, referring to the previous chapter. This is not the negation of atoms or dharmas that, excuse me, thus it is not the negation of atoms or dharmas that results in enlightenment, but the negation of our belief in them.

[50:06]

The negation of our belief in them. White Nung says, the four views, all are false. Thus are they called the four views. They're views. Okay? So it's just about not being caught by our views. And Thich Nhat Hanh, who I've really been enjoying a lot, says, all concepts co-arise and are empty of a separate self. If the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind is empty, then the ideas of self-person, living being and lifespan are also empty. So why should we discriminate or be afraid of them? All concepts are Dharma's objects of mind signs. The Buddha tells us that wherever there is a sign, there is deception. The sign of self-person suchness or Tathagata, all are subject to deception. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh.

[51:10]

We only got five minutes left. Chapter 32. Furthermore, Subudi, if a fearless bodhisattva filled measureless infinite worlds with the seven jewels and gave them as an offering to the Tathagadas, the Arhats, the fully enlightened ones, and a noble son or daughter grasped but a single four-line gata of this teaching of the perfection of wisdom, and memorized, discussed, recited, mastered, and explained it in detail to others, the body of merit produced by that noble son or daughter as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater. And how should they explain it? By not explaining. Thus is it called explaining. As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space, an illusion, a dew drop, a bubble, a dream, a cloud, a flash of lightning, view all created things like this.

[52:12]

All this was spoken by the Buddha to the joy of the elder Subuddhi, the monks and nuns, the laymen and laywomen, the Bodhisattvas, the Devas, humans, Ashuras, and Gandharvas of the world, all of whom were greatly pleased with what the Buddha said. classic ending to any sutra. Kind of important. The sutra ends that way. Again, here it is again, this Christmas morning times a thousand. The same practice of giving, the same seven jewels, and the same comparing it to the teaching of a four-line gata. It is significant that In this case, the Buddha says, if a fearless bodhisattva fills measureless infinite worlds, et cetera, et cetera, with this amazing gift. And then he says, and a noble son or daughter grasped a single four-line gatha.

[53:24]

So it's been pointed out that there's an advance here. There's a contrast. Now, even a bodhisattva can be caught by appearances, and the true dharma is accessible to anyone. This is a very important kind of Mahayana understanding. So it's a little subtle, but it says it. You know, every translation of the Diamond Sutra says that. At the last chapter, if a fearless bodhisattva does all this, okay, that's nice. And... If a noble son or daughter teaches this four-line gatha, the merit is greater. So bodhisattvas can still be caught, and anybody can access the Dharma. Anyone can have understanding. Anybody can have understanding. This is the universality of the Mahayana. Very important. And then they have this line.

[54:29]

How should they explain it? By not explaining. Thus is it called explaining. Okay? How Zen is that? That's pretty Zen. The sutra is very, very important to the Zen school. You know, so I'm giving up on explaining. No, not really. I've said many times this is explaining Zen. So, you know, we go on explaining things. But please do not be caught by any explanations. In fact... You should view all explanations as a lamp, a cataract, a star in space, etc., etc., etc. The most famous gata. As a lamp, a cataract, that is a fault in the eye, a star in space, an illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble, a dream, a cloud, a flash of lightning, view all created things like this. Don't take it seriously. Um... The lines actually don't link that gata very well, and many people have suggested that that gata doesn't even summarize the sutra very well.

[55:41]

It summarizes part of the sutra, but Red Pine and others say that the gata in chapter 26 is actually maybe a little better at summing up the whole sutra. However, there it is. That's the translation we get. Oh, yeah. For scholars, it's interesting that this whole ending is actually the same as the ending to the perfection of wisdom in 500 lines. So, you know, there's no question about that. Also, I wanted to point out that here at the end of the sutra, this was spoken to the joy of the elder Sabuti and the monks and nuns, lay men and lay women, bodhisattvas, devas, humans, ashuras, and gandharvas. So that's much more typical of a Mahayana scripture, like the Lotus Sutra or the Avatamsaka Sutra, whereas you may recall at the beginning of the sutra, we just had 1,250 bhikshus and some bodhisattvas.

[56:46]

Seem to be a largely male crowd and basically shravakas. All of a sudden, here at the end, the gang's all here, including even non-humans. You know, Gandharvas are like celestial guardians and Devas are like angels. So, you know, the Gata means a lot of things to a lot of people. Bill Porter suggests it's Buddha's way of saying goodbye. And that's what I want to say to you. Goodbye. Because we're out of time. And we're at the end of chapter 32. And I really enjoyed exploring the Diamond Sutra with all of you and explaining and not explaining. It's been a lot of fun. Linda and I will be back.

[57:47]

Houston, let you know how everything is going there. practicing the Dharma on the Gulf Coast. Thank you very much.

[58:08]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_93.9