Good morning. I understand the microphone isn't working today, so I'm going to have to speak louder. And if I fade, please let me know. If you can't hear, you can move a little closer. But... And we're very fortunate to have water continue to visit us. Hopefully, this will make up for the drought. And it's a lot of water to study. I'm so happy Cobargo Creek is running. That's the creek that's here. And whenever I see that running, I feel, OK, we've come full cycle. It's beautiful to see it run and to see it unfold.

[01:15]

Anyhow, it brings me great joy to see Kavarga Creek running. It's one of my favorite things at Tassajara. And the amazing energy to feel with water flowing through Kavarga Creek, down the waterfall, through the valley and Tassajara Creek itself as it comes down off the mountains. Just this sense of being, of flowing, of combination of being saturated and also undone with the force of nature and the way that it really carries and moves through us. There's something I think quite powerful about that. Anyhow, I love water. I love water and mountains together. Well, I think water itself, this idea that water dissolves things, and as it moves through nature, through anything, through food, through our own bodies, through...

[02:37]

laundry this way that it undoes things it saturates it in its saturation it kind of impurifies that's part of you know water we also have the metaphor water that's purifying as dissolving as um entering into the space that's there and filling that space and in doing so carrying away with it anything that might be stuck in that space So that's my sense of it. There may be other ways that you have a sense of being undone by water, but that's one of the ways. Go into this idea of purifying. The sense of nature is being nurtured and purified by water. And it's not to say that it's always a good thing. Obviously water can be very destructive with flooding, and mudslides and other ways that it can be damaging.

[03:41]

But it's not the intention of water to be damaging. That's our imputation, that water's doing something bad, that water's doing something it shouldn't do. Water's just being water. Water just does what it does. The same thing with fire. When fire moves through the valley, it's just being fire. It's just doing what it does. It's not a bad thing. It's actually in many cases a beneficial thing. But how are we ourselves relating to it and perceiving it? That's the turning point for us to study, which is what Dogen is saying. Don't study what you perceive as water in a fixed way. Study how your perception is fixed. And how it is that your perception is what it is that's actually defiling or causing harm in some way. And are you allowed to have enough space around your perception that each thing can be what it is in its own Dharma position as completely as possible?

[04:51]

And also, you're able to find a way to relate to that particular phenomenon. You find a way to relate to water in a way that doesn't create suffering for yourself or water. You relate to fire, you relate to mountains in a way that again is fluid, flowing, not fixed in some way. Because that's its true nature. Nothing is fixed. So how do we surf this unfixed nature of all being? That's our challenge as Buddhist practitioners. Can we surf the dharma. We're surfing the waves of the dharma. We're waves surfing waves. You could also think of it that way. So it's something to study.

[05:57]

How do we relate to this idea of purification? There's a lot of people who go to take purification to an extreme. And this was something that the Buddha did before his enlightenment. All these ascetic practices, this idea of purifying the body, basically getting rid of the body as much as possible because it was the body that was holding him back from awakening. That was the perception at the time and some of the teachings at the time. So you could perceive that water is purification. You could take it too far to an extreme. And what Buddha discovered in his process was the middle way. Don't rely on either extreme. How you hold all views with equal awareness at the same time and navigate a middle path. So what I'd like to do today is... say a little bit, just recap very briefly what we talked about last week.

[07:03]

I also want to review sections 19 or go through sections 19 and 20 as an introduction prior to our getting into small groups and sharing our homework experience. That's which I assigned to you. So sections 19 and 20 set us up. for having the conversation about the homework exercise. Then we'll talk about the homework exercise, and then we'll continue with a few more of the sections. And as I said last week, mountains for Dogen are a metaphor for the network of interdependent origination, and water... for Dogen is used as a metaphor for the Buddha Dharma or Buddha nature. So, Hosho sui, Buddha nature, water is how that translates that. And that's a translation of the Sanskrit dharmata, which means the way all beings really are.

[08:08]

So, focusing to suchness, the truth of reality, the truth of the way things are, this is what Buddha awoke to. And things are not the way they appear. They are not their nama rupa. They are not what we call them. They are not the objects that we perceive. They are empty and thus without fixed form. So in 17, Dogen talks about the various attributes of water, the various ways that we can describe water. In the end, these various dualities or discriminates of the water are not the actual true nature of water. So he's asking us, pointing to, if you will, a third thing. Water is not the absolute. Water is not the relative. It's a third thing. What is that third thing? And more so to really study the way that we have a tendency to...

[09:10]

abide in dichotomies rely on dichotomies to relate to everything and the invitation is to go beyond this habit pattern that we have and also talking that water has the same virtues as mountains in that it's both flowing and not flowing it can go in any direction And our perspective of water needs to be wide enough to be able to recognize this. And we often see water and other things through our narrow point of view. And sometimes we don't see water, any object, without the filter of self. Most of the time, we don't see phenomenon without the filter of self in some way. So what we're just studying is what is this filter of self? What is our particular limited prescribed view of water?

[10:14]

Let's see, is there anything else in this? Okay, so that was a brief recap. And there were two people who volunteered to read or do, what's the word? Recitations. Thank you. So, Rhianna and Catherine. Does one of you want to go first, Rhianna? I memorized 20s. Okay. You want to do that? Okay. By the way, I was thinking of reading my best attempt at memorization, and then I wrote my own script. Excellent. So, given that what different X, B, C is different, we should possibly now... Is it that we have various ways of seeing one object? Or is it that we kind of mistakenly mistaken various images of one object?

[11:31]

At the peak of our concentrated effort on this, Therefore, our practice of your position, our practice of your patience, our pursuit of the way, must also be not merely a thought or two times. The ultimate realm must have a thousand types and thousands. Can you speak loudly so everyone can hear? We must consider that no two beings see things the same. So let's ask, do we have different ways of viewing, or is it because we most often take a narrow view? We must continuously make effort to comprehend this. Our entire practice must aspire to see beyond the relative dualism of one side or its opposite view, and open to the vast relentless possibilities that happens.

[12:34]

Thank you very much. Wait for me. Section 32. Okay. Nevertheless, when dragons and fish see water as a palace, just as females see water as a palace, they do not do it as fully water. And if an onlooker would to explain to them that their palace is far in water. They would surely be as amazed as we are now to hear that mountains are floating. Still, there would be some dragons and fish who would accept the explanation that the railings and the stairs and the columns would

[13:38]

would accept the explanation of railings, stairs, and columns, houses. We should calmly consider over and over again the reason for this. If our study is not liberated from these conflicts, we have not been freed from the body and mind of the commoner. We have not truly Any volunteers for next time? This would be any or any of the remaining sections you'd like.

[14:40]

Sasha and... Sasha and Connie. Is there anyone else? Akasha? Okay, so any from here to the end. And we have one more class before Sushin. And then after Sushin, we'll have a wrap-up session. So it'll be a Dharma event of some sort. But my hope is that we'll finish the formal walking through of the Sansui Kyo during Sushin. And then we'll kind of do a... what are we taking away from this study after this machine? What I'd like to do is, Tessida kindly typed in, there seems to be a number of missing sections in the handout that I gave you, which I didn't realize earlier was significant.

[16:00]

So Tessida kindly typed in the sections that are missing, And these handouts are those sections. So while you had Beerfield's version in the handout, Nishijima and Tanahashi were missing for sections 16 through 28 and 36 to 41. And those are a significant number. So here are the additional sections that you might want to follow along with and see how it is they compare. Do you have a copy? Okay. So what I like to do now is go through sections 19 and 20, and then we'll go into our exercise.

[17:03]

So as we begin to kind of go further into the sutra, we're going to begin to see how it is better see Dogen's structure, how it is that he's set this up. For example, this next section, 19, parallels what he did with the four views of mountain. Now he's offering the four views of water. I wonder if this is someone who would be willing to read 19 as it is here. Even though we just heard... Ko, thank you. In general, the way of seeing mountains and waters is different according to the type of seeing the seas, but seeing water, there are beings who see it as a jewel necklace. This does not mean, however, that they see as a necklace as water. How then could we see what they consider water? Theirs will actually work easily as water. Some say water doesn't directly with flowers, though it does not follow that they use flowers as water.

[18:08]

Hungry ghosts see water as breaking flames, or as dust as blood. Dragons and fish see it as a palace. as the seven treasures of the money for the money. Others see it as whips of laws, or as the terminator of the accurate liberation, or as the true human body, or as physical form and mental nature. Humans see it as what? As these different places see it, but it's what? So this teaching of the Four Views of Water is from Yogacara texts called the Mahayana Samgraha. And the example is called The Four Views of One and the Same Water. Essentially saying that depending on our karmic consciousness, we see what it is that we see.

[19:08]

And these four different ways of seeing water are ways from the kind of Dharma position of a deva or a heavenly being, the heavenly realm, the human realm, the animal realm, and the prita or hungry ghost realm. So heavenly beings are going to see water as jeweled necklaces. Another translation is a string of pearls and or miraculous flowers. And for example, devas in another text says that devas see rain as the manjushaka flower or blossoms. And they hear thunder as celestial music. So, you know, many of us might hear thunder as something to be afraid of, but they hear thunder as music. And I actually, I love thunder. I grew up on the East Coast where there's a lot of thunderstorms, so lightning and thunder is really exciting. And it also has the potential to be very destructive. And I know I have friends who are terrified by the sound of thunder and lightning.

[20:11]

So it's just kind of very unique how we relate to the same phenomenon. Hungry ghosts see water as raging flames or as pus and blood. So hungry ghosts are always thirsty. They're never satisfied. And it's like someone who's surrounded by love, but they can't get enough of it. And so whatever it is that they desire turns into flame. It gets kind of consumed, so they can't really get it. It's also said that they hate water because water is what puts out their fire. So they're dependent on fire and water washes away their impurities. So they're kind of afraid of water for what it will take away of their own nature. And then dragons and fish see water as a palace or tower or basically an abode. Or they see it as treasure, the seven treasures, or the money gem. The money gem is a wish-fulfilling jewel.

[21:14]

So your own money, pardon me, is pointing to this jewel that fulfills all wishes, all desires. And so, again, this idea that depending on our karmic consciousness, we see what we see. And we see this thing called water in many different ways. Okamura, page 162, you want to follow along. He says, heavenly beings see what we call water as jeweled necklace. Do they view our jeweled necklaces as water? So if they see someone wearing jewels, a pearl necklace, do they see a pearl necklace and go, hey, you're wearing some water. What's up with that? Right? We are not sure, but probably not. How do we see their water? We don't know that either. So how can human and heavenly beings communicate and understand each other with such different pictures of the world? So if you're seeing the same thing, but you're relating to it and perceiving in different ways, how are you going to have a conversation about it?

[22:23]

How are you going to relate together over this perception, which is different? not only between human and heavenly beings, but among beings in each of the six realms of samsara. Is it possible to share the same concepts, understanding, and values? Of course, when they ask these questions, Yogachara philosophers and Dogen are not actually talking about beings in different realms. They are talking about different human beings. Clue, right? They're talking about us. So it's not so much about other... beings in other realms, but really our own ways of abiding in different realms in our own human incarnation. So within the human realm, does everyone perceive things the same? What do you think? No. We might assume that all human beings share the same perceptions, but actually we often experience that we see the same thing in a subtly different way, or in a very different way.

[23:27]

even between spouses, parents, children, siblings, or close friends. It is apparent that people from different countries, races, and cultural and religious backgrounds have different views. We can even wonder, is there any such same thing? So, all these different perspectives, all these different karmic conditionings, even within our own families, even among our closest friends, brings up the question is... You know, is there anything at the center of what it is that each of us is perceiving that is an actual real thing that we can, once we get rid of all the different views, we finally get to this core object or thing? And that's the question that's being posed here. And another... You know, another way that I had talked about this earlier was this idea of each of us has our particular Dharma position.

[24:30]

That Dharma position consists of, it's a nexus of various causes and conditions coming together. Or you could say it another way, it's the intersectionality of different causes and conditions coming together. So based on these various intersectionalities coming together, that's going to color our particular view. It's gonna be the lens through which we experience everything. So if we study the various threads or strands of the intersexuality, we'll have a better idea of how it is that we gained or inherit this particular point of view. Oftentimes it's not a view that we've chosen. It's not something that we've constantly said, I'm gonna take up this particular view. It's something that we've gonna been imbued with or infused with by the water of the culture or conditions at which we've been swimming in. So, for example, our family, a lot of our views have been shaped by family, by our education system, by the cultural, political water that we've grown up in.

[25:36]

And it may be much later in life that we finally come to a point where we get the question, wait a second, what is this Kool-Aid I drank? Do I actually believe that what I've been told is true? Or do I feel there's something off here? And I begin to question what it is that I've been told about the way things are. And I think many of us have probably gone through that. Oftentimes that happens in our teenage years, particularly as we're kind of clarifying a little bit more, who am I? Creating more kind of a sense of differentiation between ourself and others. And also, I think later in life, too, once we get into our 30s, we get to those kind of 20s, and I find oftentimes in the 30s, we begin to question again, wait a second, what is it that I really believe? Who am I now? And there's this beautiful quote, I think the Shisou may have saved this, someone shared this earlier, from Anis Nin,

[26:47]

We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are. We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are. So the question is, how are we? What is it that has created us? And how is it that we're imputing onto a phenomenon, our particular limited framework of our conditioned self? So Dogen's putting all these views out. He's putting all these out there basically to help us loosen our own point of views. So he's not saying any of these views are right or better. He's basically saying, here's an opportunity to question your particular point of view and not be attached to the way that you think it is. But to understand that due to the Pentecost arising and there's no such thing as a fixed thing.

[27:49]

And oftentimes we, because we're fixed to our views, obviously we go to war. You know, we fight, we argue, we have conflicts, and they can escalate to the different degree that we create violence and harm and fight each other to basically convince others or to force our point of view onto others in the world. And I always think of Thanksgiving. Even though it's supposed to be this time of great gratitude, oftentimes when family members get together, it can be a time of great tension. Because you begin to recognize within this context of we're all supposed to be happy and getting along and in harmony, we actually begin to see how different we are within our own families. And then that comes out oftentimes in arguments around the dinner table, you know. because people have different experiences of what they want and how things should be.

[28:54]

And, of course, it often revolves around political, social, and religious views. Hi. I got stuck back when you said the thing about for both the literature, this is all just a metaphor for human views. I hope that's not the case. I mean, I keep thinking about that. on the men's side of the bathhouse that's not good for the fish to go in the creek. And the men see it as their swimming hole, and the fish see it as their highway. And I don't know, I guess I want to say that the fish also don't need water. And that this may speak to our different views, but also speaks to the views of it, because there is this value that we need water. Yeah, I'm sorry if I made it seem that I think Dogen and Yogacara can only speak to the human view. But they're saying our limited human view is only our limited human view.

[30:00]

There is the view of the fish. There is the experience of the fish. There is the experience of the tree. There's the experience of each phenomenon has its experience. So why do we privilege our point of view? Yeah. And I understand there's a swimming pool on the women's side as well. There are fish too, yeah. I've heard the women's side is much deeper than the men's side. And Cherish, because it's more of a swimming pool than the men's side. And I hear there's fish on that side too. Bigger fish, because the bigger pool... Oh, wow, I might see those sharks. Yeah, yeah. There's this favorite story that I've heard once about two Tibetan monks, and apparently it was Trungpa and Dilgo Kensei Rippenshe, who they were in France having a conversation at some outside event, sitting on a tree talking.

[31:11]

And one of their students snuck up close by in order to be able to kind of eavesdrop on the conversation because they were, you know, they were laughing and having a great time. And, you know, of course you're curious, oh, what do these esteemed, you know, wise Tibetan teachers laugh about, right? And so the student got close enough and she heard one of them say, and I don't know which one it was, and he says, and they call that a tree and they burst out laughing, right? So this idea that, again, that thing there, that shape has been mutually called a tree in the English language by a certain number of people. What's a tree in Spanish? What's a tree in Japanese? And what's a tree in a different language? Turkish? Arch. Arch. Sap. Sap. So, you know, we've all mutually agreed, more or less, that that shape, that particular shape, you know, and appearance is a tree.

[32:18]

And there may be variations of that, but we still call those variations trees, right? And this points to this idea that we have conventional, human conventions basically have shaped our way over the world. So we've conventionally agreed that this is a table, that this is a lamp, you know, that this is a building, and we've made it all up. All this is water. All this is fluid. All this is moving and changing. But we've just decided to conveniently call these certain things so that we can relate to this in a certain way. And even though... Even though, of course, there's nothing inherently here. There's nothing inherently fixed here that we can grab onto. So we might see water, conveniently agree that water out there is water.

[33:20]

And then we have an idea of how water should and shouldn't be used. So we then put kind of limitations on, well, if that's water, we're going to put some restrictions about how water can or can't be used. Basically, we're putting value on water. So water can be used in some ways, but shouldn't be used in other ways. So, for example, water can be used as drinking water, but some of us may think, well, we shouldn't put chemicals into water in order to get rid of toxic waste because then that pollutes the water, and that's a bad thing. And other people will say, oh, no, actually, that's a good thing. It helps us get rid of the toxic waste. So we have different ways of valuing water. As I said earlier, some of us view water as a problem if it's flooding or someone ends up drowning. And other times water is a good thing if we're bathing in it. Let's see here.

[34:22]

And the last sentence here, humans see these as water and these different ways of seeing are the conditions under which water is killed or given life. What is killed or given life? This is an expression of the precept of not killing and allowing each thing to be exactly the water that it is and not to kill it with objectification. So when we don't objectify things, that is life-giving, you could say. We give something life by not fixing it in a particular way of not objectifying it. So we should, as part of the precept, study the way in which we our distorting and limiting views kill both the subject and the object with a dualistic approach. So it's something to consider. And moving on to 20. 20, given that what different types of beings see is different, we should have some doubts about this.

[35:33]

According to some commentators, the word doubts can also be translated as questions. So in other words, we should take a closer look and question rather than be settled on our own views. We should investigate and question our views. So is it that there are various ways of seeing one water? Or is it that we have mistaken various images for one object? So is it that there are different ways of seeing the same fixed objects? Is it that there are various ways of seeing water? Have we mistaken seeing various things and just call it the same thing? How can we know there is this thing called water? Is there one fixed object and different beings with different views of the same objects? Another way of saying this, do ideas exist outside of our minds in reality? Is there one thing that different beings view in different ways?

[36:34]

Or is water really several different things? So these are all questions that are being posed here. And again, Dogen's purpose is helping us to deconstruct our tight views. And it's not that Dogen's saying he has the right view. So you might be inclined to think, oh, Dogen's got the right view, and so he's trying to foister that view on us. That's not the case. He's basically telling us to study and investigate what is water, study and investigate our views as a way to loosen our views, not hold them so fixedly. And we not only, of course, study water, we study all phenomenon in this way. And one more line here.

[37:57]

Each of us is a Buddha. We'll be the particular different type of Buddha that we are. Each and everything has its own characteristic. So we study the variety of Buddhas and as well study how inclusive we can be of others' views and others' ways of practice. So if you think your way of practice is the only true way of practice, Dogen is saying, study that. Study that particular view. It's not a matter of right and wrong views, but it's one of acknowledging our views isn't the only view, that it's limited. So that was all prefaced to our exercise. And I think that laid the context. So I gave you homework, and in the homework I asked you to identify something that you have a strong someone singular view about. And suggested it could be a political, social, religious belief or position, something that you hold as right or the way it is.

[39:03]

And I gave some examples. And then I asked you to write down three to five different other various views, ones that maybe oppose your particular view or variations of. And then I asked you to kind of stand in that view or try it on for a little bit. and embodying it to whatever degree that you could to give a felt sense of that particular view, what it was to hold that view. And then to notice the particular impact or effect that it had on you, particularly in your feelings and emotions. What body sensations did you notice? Did you have any kind of cognitive dissonance? Basically, what was your experience when you stood and held a different point of view? And how did doing that impact your original point of view? Did it change in any way? Did you feel yourself losing or gaining anything in the process? So what I like to do is get us into, I'd say groups of three.

[40:08]

If there's any kitchen folks here, you have to leave shortly. Is that true? Okay. In about five minutes. So maybe why don't you kitchen folks get into a group so that you can start the conversation at least before you head out. And then everyone else gets into groups of three, and you'll each have about five minutes to share what your experience is. So find a triad. Did you have a group from YouTube? Okay, identify who's going to go first.

[41:20]

And please, yeah. David, would you like to know? All right. Thank you. What did you say? I'm sorry, David. What did I say? What? Oh, I didn't. Right. Yeah. All right. This will be a 15-minute exercise altogether. All right. How about I move? Yeah. So, I thought about how do you think I feel? Yeah, I'm supposed to jump in. Okay.

[42:45]

Yeah, of course. I hope it's the exact same way. Wow. Health care? Health care isn't even right. Wow. You probably are using more than one. It's true. You can go back here. It's similar to what you want. It's about that perspective. Yeah, definitely. You can just go first if you want. It's just enough to do that. Yeah, yeah. I don't know. I think to, I mean, to, I mean, to, I think to, to, I mean, to, I think to, to, I mean, to, I think [...] to,

[44:11]

That was one shot. Don't go. Just don't. They take care of your hands. That's why they worry. They're really tired of them. You know, take care of your hands first. Thank you. So even when it's a bit, there's a lot of theoretical work done. And they learned it from south. And they learned it from south. And they learned it from the [...] south.

[45:13]

What's going on? [...] It's a very good song. It's [...] a very good song. That was five minutes, though.

[46:29]

First person mapping up, moving on to the second person. Yeah, cheap, yeah. Last thing. I'm going to put it on fire.

[47:47]

I'm going to put it on fire. I'm going to put it on fire. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Ready? Okay. Then I step out to that.

[49:01]

Then I step out to that. [...] Then I step out. is correct when I get out of my bed. I thought, I don't think I was going to stop for it. I don't think I was going to stop for it. It can't stop for it. I don't think I was going to stop for it. I don't think I was going to stop for it. I don't think I was going to stop for it. ... [...]

[50:08]

It's not so perfect. Yeah. Does it solve it? Yeah. I acknowledge the notion. You know, it's not. It's [...] not. No, no, no, no. I didn't want it.

[51:09]

I didn't want it. [...] person number two wrapping up and moving on to person number three You put on more than one topic?

[52:24]

You pick your topic. Unless you want to deal with it. The only thing I can say is that you gain those. And so he realized that, you know, why people will get to the point. But not even if she did. She did that by trying the other one this time all night. Well, she did. She filled herself a lot, because if she was personally not real, she suddenly felt this third spot. And she realized that that's what makes that view persist. So she realized... where it happens. It's just a realisation of it. It's just a realisation of it. Well, perhaps if you can't do it, it's just a realisation of it.

[53:33]

You're reducing us your time. That, in fact, there's a lot of stuff right here. It's like people who... And in fact, it's not as young as much as... And you'd say it's like, what is it? It's like, what is it? It's like, what is it? It's like... Exactly. That's actually very common.

[54:35]

At least we'll talk about here at benefit. Humans have more to create, not to paint on us. So that's the same thing I can even talk about. I think they're all interconnected. Organization and operation of Africans with other migrants. I could hear almost all of that. If you're interested in the world, I think it's good for you.

[55:37]

I think it's good for you. [...] I need to have less space to read the box. For just reading it on the iPods. And guys, I get the third one. [...] And I can get this. One other thing that I eat. So I'm celebrating beef.

[56:39]

I don't know. They're listening to me. I don't know. [...] So wrapping up. And let's come back together. And I'm very curious to hear what it is that you've discovered in doing this exercise. What did you discover? Was it a fun exercise?

[57:40]

Yeah? Some had fun? Was it difficult for anyone? Oh, some people had difficulty too. And was it both fun and difficult for anyone? A few people both had fun and difficulty. So what was fun about it and what was difficult about it? Chokov. One person in our group, we all sort of expressed a very high-deep physical somatic reaction to holding these opposite views that I group that are almost views of the firefly and anxiety. One of the members of our group expressed it as, to start seeing how if any people So some of the most reprehensible, sort of, at least personally reprehensible viewpoints could be defended.

[58:45]

And it sort of gives you no ground stand on and therefore, um, I don't know, but, um, at the same time as the, uh, it's almost amusing to take those viewpoints and drive them on. Great, thank you. Tasha? Disturbed? Disturbed, yes. And not even so much because of time on the view. Or because of, yeah, I can totally see how people, you know, there's some, I can see that you, you get to make sense of it.

[59:48]

So I had to think, almost, I do believe that focus is not pretty good to just take the path, but I can't really see it. Focusrite says there's so much work the task drawing, you know, the bigger part of the structure is all the, you see, so the spirit is all the, you know, but when I give it, it makes sense. And it just highlights how, before and now maybe I have to go to speaks news and now I can testify to the city with my speaker session.

[60:52]

I don't have to testify to my... I can't look after that, it will be very helpful. Yeah. So the conundrum of being able to see both sides and then trying to figure out, well, what do I choose? Anyone else? What did you discover? Akashop? The exercise is tight on, not thick on. So it's not rather comfortable feeling. It's not thick on, but it's literally And what is the advantage of stepping into the other view and understanding it more clearly?

[62:06]

It made me see how So seeing what our own arrogance around our view and what we think is other people should be doing or thinking, And then there's also the question of, does it make you feel any closer to the other person, you know, in some way? I'm just putting that out there. Someone's shaking their head no? No? No, does it? Yes, Gladys. Well, it is a sentence.

[63:13]

It is a disagreement and a sentence for both parties. But if, let's say, I could just look a little more to myself to hear what this course, what is it? My graph is quite open. I mean, very what? Oh. Oh. Oh. And that's, you know, that's part of the... I'm sorry, there's a deer walking down the path, and for a moment it looked like it was going up the Zendo steps.

[64:30]

That was just my view, but for a moment, deer, it looked like it was going to the Zendo. So, what... Yeah, how do they see it? Oh, it's the family coming by. I think it's two mothers and three children. Yeah, they're taking over now. Wow, they're really getting around. So, what was I saying? The groundlessness. Andra. Andra, there was another point I, as Laz was talking, came to mind. And understanding the causes and conditions for someone's particular point of view. So I'm thinking of my father, who was anti-immigration. Now, he was a blue-collar worker.

[65:33]

He was a machinist in a factory that made farm equipment. He was basically not well-educated. He couldn't read. And so he got a job that, you know, paid well enough to support the family. But his concern was if there were other people who are allowed to take his position who he felt, you know, weren't part of the country in terms of, you know, being born here and raised here, and that should be the priority, right? He would lose his job. because maybe immigrants would be willing to work for less than he would be able to work for, or his salary would go down as a matter of fact. So he saw it as a threat. It wasn't personal to the individuals. It was just a systemic view that he said, oh, if there are too many people who could vie for my job, I could be out of my job, and I don't have other options because I can't read. So that's why he held his view.

[66:37]

And I could understand it. I didn't agree with it. But I could see why he would hold that and we'd have arguments about it because of it. But it was hard for him to see, well, would I be okay? Would I be okay if I no longer had my job and wasn't able to read enough to find... He was a garbage man too. You know, he collected trash, you know, because that was what he could do. And so that was his foundation. So other things that you discovered? Sorry, two interesting things came up in our group to me. One time was that somebody shared that while they were trying on another point of view, people mentioned before, there's this very physical... The physical sensation became so unpleasant that the exercise was truncated.

[67:40]

And when I was hearing that, I thought, well, that's a bodily reaction. So to meet that with an admonition for open-mindedness, it felt like if I hit somebody with a hammer and I go, ah, you just need to be open-minded to the hammer and just realize that other people may not react that way to the hammer. And, like, this is just a reaction you're having. And you hold that reaction. Like, well, and because, like, this person literally could complete the exercise. So I wondered what open-mindedness meant when it's meant by a bodily sense that this must stop. Then there's another... Can I answer that first? Or respond to that? It was a question. It was a statement that I was wondering. Oh, okay. It sounded like a question, so... So you just wanted to say it. You know, I thought about making the caveats as you do this exercise, but I trusted you to be self-aware enough to not pose something that would really be triggering for yourself.

[68:47]

If you have particular traumatic experiences around a particular issue, you could use your own wisdom to decide, how far can I go into this? And open-minded doesn't mean... that you need to accept the other view as right. It's not about necessarily saying that I approve of that view. It's just saying, can I understand what it is to be in that Dharma position and see the world from that particular view? That's the open-mindedness. It's not approving of the view. It's being able to see from that particular vantage point and understand, like I was talking about my father, what would be the causes and conditions that he would hold that particular view. I wasn't approving of his view. but I could understand why he would hold that view. And what came out of his, the concerns that would come from holding that particular view. So that's how I see the difference between open-minded.

[69:47]

And then this open-mindedness is also being open-minded to what is it that I'm feeling physically in response to these various views. To be attentive to that, to acknowledge that, you know, and then discern for yourself what is appropriate self-care here for myself. So your second... That's fine, but it was a good point there. Opportunity to bring that up. And then the other one that I really liked was this notion that there's a quote, I don't remember who made it, but there's a quote, that's just your opinion, man. Yeah, with Big Lebowski. That's where I knew it was from, but I don't know if that was the original. Yeah. Anyway, there's this sense that everything's just an opinion, and how there's a certain arrogance to that view, that somehow the person who's saying that is above all the difference in the duality of mind, and that they see that everything is really just the same, or that they're just all these people with delusions except for them.

[70:58]

And I connected with that. Again, that's not what I said, but I thought that that's exactly what... I get that feeling sometimes, but I thought that was well-articulated. And actually, an add-on to that, which I really liked, was that this dualistic mind and this description function that we seem to have is the way that we know the flow, and these are elements of the flow itself. And to deny them this... It doesn't seem particularly organic or filthy. So I really enjoyed hearing that comment. Thank you very much. Anyone else? So I noticed that for me, when I did this just a few times, and I brainstormed a ton of topics, and I found that even the topics that seemed practical for me were actually at their heart. really moral pressures for me. And so everything came down to a matter of X. And as I found when I did this type of size, any issue in which I was ever able to step all the way over, like truly open my heart's mind to the other side, I've never been all the way back to where I ever started.

[72:16]

And that made me scared to do it. for some of the opinions that I really didn't want to speak about. We talked about this, like, try it on versus take it on. But for me, any time that I would just try it on, I was actually not going all the way over. There was always some piece of me that was like, oh, I'm just going to try this on for 60 seconds. But when I really open up and never rebounded back to the strength of which I just started. And so that for me is the identity-shattering fear that holds me to be able to do this. Who would I be if I widened my aperture of identity enough to include something that before I wasn't willing or able to include? Who would I become then? And that's the risk of, you know, this exercise points to compassion as well.

[73:18]

You know, this idea of compassion with feeling. To be able to stand in another person's point of view and to feel what they're feeling. And that feeling may be suffering, which is kind of also one of the reasons why this exercise could be uncomfortable. When you stand in another person's point of view, you may actually experience the suffering they're experiencing as a... as a result of the particular view that they're holding. And so because of that, you can empathize. They're having pain. Their view is causing them pain. That's why they're acting in the way they're acting. They're in pain. Wow. Right? And suddenly it's no longer about, is their view right and wrong? It's a matter of, this person is suffering. So now, how do I want to respond?

[74:21]

That's the point, that's the place I think we truly want to be met, in the place of our suffering. Not so much about right or wrong, but can you see how it is I experience the world and particularly acknowledge the pain that I might have? But not doing in a moralistic, I see your pain. I'm so sorry for your pain. It's actually being on the same level as the individual and saying, I too know what that pain is like. I too, just as I want to be free of pain, I too want you to be free of suffering. So how can we meet here in a way that alleviates that suffering for both of us? I saw Ellen and then Rihanna, and I throw some hands over here. One member of our group took something that was very personal and very triggering and got all the way to the other side and found it very empowering and felt this big sense of power.

[75:22]

And it speaks to what you're saying. That sense of power was probably based on fear that if I didn't have that power, what would happen? But that was just a very... It's one of the most corrosive aspects of privilege and entitlement, you know? to when that's taken away or any threat of that being taken away, then the sense of power that you've had from it also begins to dissolve and you feel vulnerable. Not realizing that those people who don't have that power and privilege already feel vulnerable. So why is it that some people should feel vulnerable and others shouldn't?

[76:24]

So then that makes this question, how can we create conditions where everyone is equally held and regarded and there's more of a balance of power, if you will. Shared power. Thank you. Diana? Well, I'm not sure. I think they already passed, but something I said in your example of your father, I was just wondering what So you can see what is happening. And you can ask people to actually understand who's afraid, who's afraid of what they've got, who's afraid of what they've got, who's afraid of what they've got, who's afraid of what others could be. But how do you still not hold the duality? Yeah, but it's still wrong to blame it on other people, especially people of color, or people of color, but how do you still hold So I think Dogen and the Dharma is pointing us to you can't be without views.

[77:51]

As humans, we always are going to have views. Why is the compassion... But then there's skillful means. We still have to go out and... you will get a job you know and take care of ourselves so what skillful means holding compassion and also meeting the reality of the world we still need to have some view and it will be yes it's maybe a compassionate view but also there needs to be a relative practicals you know component as well you know how will i get a job and feed myself what does that look like and how am i going to navigate that so again i think it's holding your view loosely holding it with spaciousness and still doing what you feel.

[78:56]

And I think the invitation is still questioned deeply. Is this view, and I think the Buddhist point of view, the ultimate point of view is, is this liberative? Is my view somehow liberative and will I be acting in a way that is liberative as well? So always holding that question up, you know. How does this bring more freedom from suffering for all of us? Isn't it really more logistically? How do you say to your father, gosh, I hear how this is so hard for you. Might you expand your views or not see it based on people's skin color or nationality? I'm thinking of a chaplain who's that poor congregation who's just racist. about their care providers. Sitting at their bedside, they're sick, they're wounded, and they don't want black ears.

[80:01]

They can take care of that. I want to have compassion if they have some issues. So first to acknowledge where they're at and decide in that moment is my getting them to have another point of view of what's needed. Is it really going to make a difference at this point? You could still think that. It could still be your point of view. That's fine. It doesn't mean that you have to make the other person agree with you. It may not be appropriate in that moment to have that conversation. But your number one task in that moment is to meet the other person as fully as possible. Even if you disagree. with the racist comments they're making and their point of view. You may have enough compassion to say this person has karmic views that are causing suffering for them and for others and leave it at that and decide at that point what can I do in this moment that is the request of the moment.

[81:08]

And you can also rather than trying to convince them to say, oh, this is how I see it. I'm very grateful to have these care providers who are of color and otherwise, because I have benefited so much from their support, their skill, their expertise, their kindness. You can share your experience without having it be an argument about making the other person wrong. I find that's often the most, when people have done that with me, I receive it more. Because it's an invitation to step into a different space, but it doesn't make me wrong in the process, because if someone's arguing in such a way that you're wrong, then I'm not going to be comfortable enough to kind of go out of my comfort level, which is what the invitation is, ultimately. I just wanted to comment on what you said about, can I just have compassionate, not

[82:13]

believe that what they do is wrong. And I think it seems to me that believing, having that view is self-cultivating compassion. For example, one view I have is that I think we shouldn't take children in determining things. And that view comes from a place of compassion. So believing that view, I acknowledge the suffering that these people experience. And I hold this view. from a place of compassion. So I think you can, this is how I do it. So you believe that not wanting to, that your patient didn't want to flag nurse, and you think it's wrong, it comes from a place of compassion. So it's not that you're not compassionate to that person. I think it softens, this is how I feel, it softens my mind even wider. I can even have that compassion for both sides by acknowledging because of the conditions.

[83:20]

So this is what we're asked. What is your value point? What's the bottom line that you're resting on for you to make decisions about how you're going to navigate the world? So we're being asked in the Dharma to constantly look at that to question what is the foundation of our beliefs and what are we What are we privileging? What are we putting at the center? That's what the precepts are, you know, and, you know, other ways to help us to hold certain values that are said to be compassionate and liberative. Sasha, you had your hands up for a while. But how you describe your quality position, that made a lot of sense.

[84:22]

And especially in Europe, I mean, probably in America too, this is a hot topic subject. And so many people are coming from Africa and seeking refuge in Europe and the clouds. But the clouds are pounding everywhere because they try to make good reports that are not that didn't quite improve. And then they'll actually create some people that are saying, we should go on this finishes, because if we could just encourage more people, which is very, you know. And I totally see the point when there's many of the most people who don't make that much money would have jobs that would require are saying, okay, you liberal middle-class people are saying we should get it more liberals, but we are taking a little Ukraine twice. And then, at the same time, we don't see how we can't say, you know, we have to keep ourselves, we have to keep ourselves, we have to keep ourselves, we don't just act like that.

[85:37]

The concept is that If you don't see computers inside those phones at the same time, you can't at least stand with that very restrictive one. So, I would like what you said, well, we did the first one when it was that way. If you can find more of the story that reminds me about a huge couple of specific pilots that was not for the tea, as well as the children. And because they just moved into the neighborhood and then they sort of think it's fine. It's a person. It's not a person. It's not a person. So they're trying to find it and sort of get it.

[86:38]

that's a playground, you're very sick, and they talk to you about people's dying, versus Judas's name. So it was just a story that we had to make a plan. But if you can't, you can't always resolve the issues, you can't, just like you said, try to resolve a fight, point of view that really makes sense. The systemic part is thought of some issues. But what really means the first thing is the first thing is the first thing is the first Thank you.

[87:52]

Are you finished? There's different spheres to look at. There's the personal, the interpersonal, the kind of social, and then there's the systemic. And you have to decide which of these can I operate Which ones do I have energy in this present moment to attend to? Maybe the immediate is the personal, the interpersonal with one other person. And maybe at the same time, the structural, it's going to take a lot more time and energy to change. But we still need to make effort for that. But in the present moment, can we meet the person that's in front of us and find a way to connect from that point? Thank you for that example. I know Jody and Kate, and Gladys, since you spoke already, I want to... One is, explain to the person, number one, you were all in positive conditions, but Brock, you took this idea, and then

[89:08]

encouraging them to come forward with those. And the other thing is, the second thing I want to say is that it's not fear of something, it's power of something. And being aware of that says if you don't push yourself, you will go before you meet the other person. And, um, um, there's everything here. It'll come in from death to me. Oh, sure. Just that recognizing that if you can engage deeply enough and offer each other enough, that we get and say, we all hear the same thing. Yeah, that's a great, I like that. It's not their suffering, it's our suffering, because if they're suffering, we're going to be suffering. And this dependent co-arisen being, you know, makes it already a shared suffering.

[90:08]

You know, so how can we meet it as a shared suffering? You know, and understand that in some way. So, thank you very much. Jody, and then Greg? Yeah, I mean, this is way back in the end of the day. You know, I come back again, you get to the practices of our power. And in that instance, the likelihood that you're going to change that versus mind. The likelihood that you're going to do part of the process is definitely rescue. And so I think that One thing that has helped me, he doesn't wake up like this, is to just constantly turn it back, well I'm not, well I'm not going to change this person to me, but is this a situation objective for myself, in order to, uh, oh, I think there's that, uh, so do I need to change something for myself here, rather than change that person to me, is that, right or wrong, I'm not going to change that person to me, yeah, I'd love to read through it, but it's So that's one thing, you know, it's just that the kids are quite mad at that story about the bat-bats that people are involved.

[91:21]

It's like, bat-bats, and you say, bat-bats. So they're going to say they're going to say, bat-bats. They already know they're not supposed to be talking. I mean, really, they're almost silent, they're just talking about bat-bats. And then you'll be... walking away can be a compassionate expression you know you can still hold in your heart love and compassion and the wish for the well-being of the other person and it's wise discernment to say it's not a good thing for either of us for me to stay here in this proximity So I can hold you in my wish that you are free of suffering and I am free of suffering and leave the room or leave the space until the condition is such that if ever, I can return and engage in this conversation.

[92:22]

So there are multiple ways to navigating the circumstance, it just doesn't mean we have to be chums, you know, with the person, you know, best buddies. It may be, I care for you, and it's better that we are not in proximity to each other at this time, you know. Yeah, and the other thing is just where I am, folks, is that, you know, it's reasonable, so we keep coming up with this example about impressionizing the cops. I just want to say to people just to see that the problem is capitalism. I mean, that's all I'll say is I struggle with the desire to correct people's view. And I doubt that struggle is going to be a lot of times. Versus that aren't irrationals at all. It's very big. And the premise is built on the systemic

[93:49]

causes of condition so many of us we can't see far enough to understand and take in the systemic situation that's just too too big it's too much you know and we don't have that facility and so we stay with what's personal how it's immediate to me and we're we kind of stay in that realm and that's that's understandable but there is the invitation is It's not just about you. And this is what this text is pointing to. So often we just keep to, how does this affect me as a self? And not, how does this affect me as the interdependent self? You know, how does this affect all beings? You know, the system of interdependency. How is this, you know, I'm going to, how do we adjust that? Simultaneously. So is there the invitation of simultaneity, you know, for us to... I keep both this one and all beings in mind at the same time, and that could be pretty, whoa, overwhelming.

[94:51]

It's hard to do, so. I saw, was it Greg, or? My and Bessa are big ups for pragmatism and skill in a famous story about the feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. She's a little girl in Paris. All the grown-ups were bumming out. Nazis are coming. Nazis are coming. What's needed in the moment? Any other? Yes. with Brad was expressing a negative view about someone that I liked, Brad. So instead of having kind of a direct reaction to some comic novel stuff, is that what, like, very not so quickly, is that what I say?

[96:01]

And then immediately that just inflated into this, yeah, thing. I was crazy. Yeah, I thought, yeah, we'll be careful with this book. Yeah, sometimes when you shine the light on it, when you put up a mirror to the other person and reflect back to them what they're actually saying, they're like, oh, oh, oh, huh, really? Oh, maybe I don't believe that or I see my own view in a different way. And suddenly we have to ask ourselves, is that really how I want to be? Any other? Gladys, you had your hand up earlier. What? Thank you. Yes. So one thing that a couple

[97:10]

came up in our group was this feeling of needing to defend, like actively sniffing and defend how one feels. And it reminds me of this, here's a pinnacle where it says, reality is real. That is, it is preeminent. It can take the pressure. Reality doesn't demand that you adjust your opinion to suit it. And the way I hear that coming up for this topic is that there is some sensation that, for me, I land in the most compassionate view. And whether that is walking out of a hospital or whether that is opening up to my father's immigration use or something, there is actually a sense of brightness already there. And so I got to that point of fullness from purely the heart and recognizing if there's any property that feels like it can be challenged, that I'm not open to be challenged on this, then surely that part is vulnerable.

[98:25]

So how can I bring myself to the point of such openness that I know not to challenge to not help? That's a great practice question. How to walk into that. And then how to live the day-to-day. So there's that absolutes. Reality doesn't care what you throw at it. The only one that gets hurt is you. And at the same time, you have to navigate your day-to-day life with others. How do you do that? So both of them are simultaneously. Any other burning sharings? Virgin sharings? Nope. Okay. Well, thank you very much for engaging in that exercise. I found it very fruitful, and I really appreciate your exploration of it. I want to take five minutes to quickly go through two more sections, if you would please bear with me.

[99:31]

Sections 21 and 22. Could someone read 21? They are not dependent on others. They are separate, dependent on water. Therefore, water is not water, earth, water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness. It is not blue, yellow, red, white, or black. It is not form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or idea. But nevertheless, the waters of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and the rest have been spontaneously adhering as such.

[100:37]

So this goes back to the question that we just looked at in 20, given that what Given that different types of beings see is different, we should have some doubts about this. Is it that there are various ways of seeing one object? Or is it that we have mistaken various images for one object? So, in other words, which is real? The water before being perceived by beings? Or the various perceptions of water by various beings? And so there could be other related questions that you might want to consider. Is there an original water? That is the true thing, while our views are the only things that are illusory. Another question, how can we know whether there is such a fixed original water? If there is an original water, how can we actually know it? How can we come and perceive it correctly? How can we go beyond our perceptions and see this original water? And if there is no original water, what then? If there's no original water, what then?

[101:42]

So, again, back to the paragraph, although we say there is water of the various types, it would seem there is no original water, no water of various types. Nevertheless, the various waters in accordance with types of beings do not depend on the mind, do not depend on the body of these beings, they do not arise from different types of karma, they do not depend on self, and they are not dependent on water. So, basically, Dogen is answering the question himself. He's saying, no, it's not that there are many views of one thing. There is no original water. There is no original water that we can get to. Water isn't just one thing. So there are many, many experiences and there's no essence or substance inherently existing that we can say is water. There's just everything arising and everything passing away and many of you is just coming together in this one life together. So there's nothing at the middle that we can essentialize or discover as water. And these other views, depending on the mind and body, basically means depending on karmic conditions.

[102:51]

So, everything is liberated, dependent on water. So, water's freedom only depends on water. Yes, water does depend on other dharmas, as it's independently carism. But the aspect that Dogen is talking about here is that water depends on just water. So on the one hand, I depend on my own karma, my own dharma position, the choices I make, how I navigate the world. And at the other hand, I depend on others. So everything, by definition, is limited. And at the same time, everything also touches the limitless. The condition of and the unconditioned, the relative and absolute, simultaneously. So this is the paradox of our life. How can we live in such a way that express this itself through limited forms while being in the middle of limited life?

[103:56]

So my life has these two sides. I must be able to embrace both of them. So if I have this idea that I want to be a ballet dancer, causes conditions such that that ain't going to happen at this point. This age, this body, the training that we require, it's not going to happen, folks. So I have to recognize those limited conditions. of this particular nexus of causes and decisions coming together. This body isn't going to do it. However, at the same time, I can be a ballet dancer in relationship to all being, in relationship to all of life kind of twirling and whirling around as the life that I am, this larger life. So that's why I can appreciate when there is before me a relative being as a ballet dancer dancing. I can have a shared, connected experience. I can enjoy that and feel it for myself and live, if you will, vicariously through that particular nexus of causes and conditions dancing in front of me because we're the same life dancing together.

[105:05]

Does that make sense? So... Dogen is saying that any kind of viewed water is liberated already, regardless of how it's being viewed. Even our view of water is liberated. And this word liberated here is a translation of the word, the Zen expression, tadatsu. Tadatsu means freely penetrating, going through any barriers, totally liberated. So it means here water is simply water, completely free of its relationship with the observer and with any other causes and conditions. So basically, each thing is inhabiting its full Dharma position. In its Dharma position, it is free. It's simply being itself. And it's the universe blooming as itself in that particular Dharma position. Let's see. And then the next... Therefore, water is not the water of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, or basically the idea of mind, is not blue, yellow, red, white, or black.

[106:14]

It's not form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or idea. Nevertheless, the waters of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and the rest have been spontaneously appearing as such. So water is appearing as water and is free of being water. That's basically, it's 100% free of its appearance, right? So how it appears, it's free of, regardless of the particular views. So again, Dogen's pointing to this Genjo, this appearance, two sides at once, manifesting as Genjo and liberation as Tadatsu, constantly at rest, constantly abiding its Dharma position in its appearance, and constantly walking, empty of fixed being. So these, again, are the true virtues of water. It's the way that it truly functions. And in that virtue, it is liberated. Life is liberated from clinging to itself. Even Zen is free of being Zen.

[107:16]

And then the last paragraph, 22. This being the case, it becomes difficult to explain by what and of what the present land and palace are made of. To say that they rest on the wheel of space and the wheel of wind is true neither for oneself nor for others. It is just speculating on the basis of the suppositions of an inferior view and it said only out of fear that without a resting place they could not abide. So... We can't really explain what or whom, by whom, the present lands, water palaces were made. There's no original creator in Buddhism, and there's no essential essence, you know, as we've said before. So, likewise, some people say there must be a real water of which these things are only views of. But Dogen's saying there is no real water in the way that we're conceiving of it. It is water is merely... as also merely another manifestation of interdependent origination.

[108:22]

These two phrases here, we're of space and we're of wind, are foundations of this world according to Buddhist cosmology. So this is basically saying that we want a fixed, steady place in order to stand and feel safe. Does anyone here want that? You want a fixed thing you can rely on so you feel safe? Yeah? And I think most of us do, even though we don't necessarily imagine that. But this idea that there's some place to stand is a fiction, right? According to Dogen. We are deceiving ourselves when we think this way because we and everything is moving all the time. Everything's unfixed. And this not being fixed is the original liberation. But we're afraid of our already available liberation and freedom. We're afraid to be free. So we hold on to our fixed views. How many of you, when you stepped into this other point of view, some of you said this, it was kind of scary. I was afraid I would lose my identity.

[109:25]

I would become something other than what I perceive myself as now, and that felt unsafe in some way. So you could say we're like animals or prisoners who have been in an unlocked cage or cell for our whole lives. And we're afraid to exit once they realize that nothing is holding them back and that they've always been free. We're afraid of acknowledging the freedom that comes with our groundlessness. So we'd rather stay in ourselves, in our limited views, in our sense of a separate self rather than step out of that and realize that we are fundamentally already free. Because the limitation, the cells of our separate self are familiar. Because they're familiar, because they're intimate, we feel we know it. So we want to stay with what it is we know. We fear the unknown. Because when you step outside of any fixed view, you have to rest in not knowing.

[110:28]

And that's pretty difficult. So this invitation, again, is can you be willing to abide in not knowing at all times? Can your view, your ultimate view, be one of... I don't know. I don't know and I can't know. And therefore, what now? How do I navigate the world from a place of not knowing? From a place of groundlessness? And? Any thoughts on that? You're all faded. I can see you. Melting! The energy went out of our balloons. They're sinking. Thank you for bearing with me and bearing with this journey. So I want to be clear that I mentioned the homework for our next class, which will be on Thursday, December 5th.

[111:34]

If you haven't done so already, please finish chapter three on the water section. And you could also begin reading Chapter 4, Mountains and Waters of the Dwelling Places of Sages. This is in Okamura's book. And if you don't have the book, then read sections, finish reading the sections up to 34 if you haven't done so already, and you can start reading Sections 35 through 47 in preparation for Sushin. Hi. So some of the sections are already in the original, so I only asked her to put in the ones that were missing. Thank you again for that hard work.

[112:35]

Okay, so it is five after, so please be in the zendo in... What is that, 13 minutes? You want me to do something? You're going to hit the bell? Oh, okay. For the sake of time, let's just bow and offer the merit of this study together to the liberation of all beings. Particularly the water beans. Thank you all very much. You can still ring it if you like. Can I? Thank you. The class is over. Thank you. Thank you. I think this is extra.

[113:38]

Oh, great, thanks. This is a fairy gift. It's a fairy gift. Chill that off.

[113:45]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_47.54