Fullness and lack are really about joy and loss, so that the Buddha way is leaking clear of essentially clinging to looking forward to either one of those things. So it is different in some ways from the main one, so it is a slightly different interpretation. I think all these interpretations are there. There is another thing that occurs to me, maybe it is a tenuous connection, but there is often the analogy of a lotus blossom growing from the mud, and there is a real intrinsic connection between the two. They are sort of saying that because the Buddha way, which is the lotus originally sprang forth from abundance and paucity, there is birth and death, so like the mud. Is that probably, you know? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, the image of the lotus in the muddy water is... And they are one thing that can't exist without the other.

[01:04]

Right. The interpretation that the first sentence is abundance, because all these things exist, and the second sentence is lack, because nothing exists. We have covered that, right? Yeah. That is common. Yeah. But it is very different, it seems to me, that the last line in both the Cleary and in the one from the Northwest, there was added how we would feel about blossoms falling, because it says, specifically in there, but in this too, it seems much more interpreted than just, yeah, in attachment, blossoms fall, and in immersion, weeds spread, without the comment that we dislike them. Right. And so the shorter one is much more powerful.

[02:05]

Yeah. brought forth initially this whole range of experience with the feelings when blossoms fall, and the longing and regret, but then the possibility of that turning around and becoming something else. And in both of these, it seemed like it was much more positive than negative. Yeah. Yeah, so what would be, so a way of being in the midst of clinging or aversion, in a way that was really clinging and aversion, but was somehow at the same time free of clinging

[03:06]

and aversion. And this, I like Mr. Yari Bokosan's comment about the dogs and the grasshoppers, because of course, this is always true, that somebody writes you a letter telling you that they hate you, and you are weeping and upset about this letter, and then an ant comes and crawls across the letter, and to the ant, the letter is just territory. So, if you had enough presence of mind to notice that the letter also exists from the ant's point of view, and its beautiful cherry blossoms also exist from the dog's point of view, and from the sun's point of view, and from other beings' point of view, and if somehow an appreciation or a sense of all that were included in your aversion, it would be a very

[04:08]

different kind of aversion than the narrow, confined sense that we have without much practice sense of our lives. So, this would be a great thing, to be able to appreciate our own afflictions and our own negative emotions, and see them in a big context. Yes, I'm unhappy, and the whole world is going on at the same time. That's nice. I can see that we're not going to get beyond these first four sentences today, so we have a great challenge to finish the text in the weekend, but we might do it. I said before we would do it, now I say we might do it. Can I ask two questions? Yes. One is, back to what you were just saying with seeing that kind of letter, which is who are part of this larger issue are not coming from the same perspective and working

[05:10]

it through from the way we are talking and doing it, that's a big question. The other is a simpler question, perhaps, which is on a form and structure. The primary interpretation that we're working with has a form that is more set out akin to a poetic document, and the other two copies here are both done in paragraphs for each of the areas. Is it possible to discern from the original Japanese as it was laid out whether it was laid out in a form that was more suggestive of a poetic expression or of a narrative? I'm not sure about this, but I think that it was one big block of characters. I'm going to just answer your first question very briefly, because I'm aware a lot of people

[06:13]

have their hands up and I don't want to let them speak. It doesn't matter with other people how other people do things, react to situations, because we have no control over the way other people do. In practice, we're working with our own, what we can do, what we are. This is where we're aware and responsible. It's almost as fruitless to try to get other people to do things in a way that would be most helpful, as it is to think, I wish that that didn't happen, because other people are highly uncooperative in the way that we would like them to behave, usually. I mean, sometimes you can influence other people's behavior and there are appropriate times to do that, but generally speaking, it's pretty hard. Anyway, we can talk about that more if you want. I know there are about five or six people who, and I want to especially call on people who haven't, anybody who hasn't spoken?

[07:13]

Yes, there you go. I just wanted to get your understanding. You said before that this is not a succession, it's not climbing a ladder, it's not like you start with the first and end up with the last. So you see them all encompassing and abiding at the same time. Yeah. Simultaneously. I mean, I think it's both. That's what I'm saying, it's both. I think that they can be seen, I think, as stages, one after the other, but not as one stage is lesser than the other in one stage. Often, you know, in Dogen's writing, he often has this move where he presents stages and then he says, or sometimes embeds in the expression of each stage, and this stage includes all the other stages. And this next stage, which is coming after that one, includes all the other stages, including the first one. So it's not as though you graduate from one to the next. Yeah, right. It's not as if, because the whole point of Genjo Koan is this moment that we're facing, this issue at hand, this koan at the present moment includes everything.

[08:18]

That there is no, this is not a rehearsal for the next thing, or preparation for the next thing. This is everything. So that sense of experience being like that, moment after moment, is completely what Genjo Koan is all about. So if he's going to set forth stages like that, it's basically in order to be able to speak about something. Because you can't speak about everything. Every word can't include all words. When you start using words, right away you're in the world of ABC, you know, one word follows another. So you have to say one thing before you say another thing. So he must write in that way, but then he's always careful to say, but don't misunderstand this as one thing, preparation for another thing. Does that make sense? Who else wanted to speak? It's almost like that last sentence answered that question too. Sometimes I think of Dogen working with his students and going through one and two and

[09:21]

three, and they're all getting kind of heady and leaping clear of the many and the one, and our hardship is around the corner. And, you know, it's all very detached in a certain way. I can feel myself getting into that in the first three. And then he just turns around and says, don't forget the thing that goes through all of this is the attachments, attachment and aversion. I mean, it's almost, he brings us right back. It's not really the fourth thing. He says, you know, you guys, come on, off your pillows, come back. If I haven't reminded you, I need to remind you again that it is about this very life, this very human life. So I feel that, you know, our practice is very human. You know, it's about our human, the acceptance and affirmation of our human life as such, and not going beyond or transcending it. Yeah.

[10:28]

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And later on he'll speak about dharma positions, each thing abiding in its own dharma position. Meaning that for a human, it's being human. For a bird, it's being a bird. For a fish, it's being a fish. So it's not that, and for a fish, everything is included in being a fish. There's nothing left out. Fish doesn't need to be a bird. And for a human, it's being a human. And everything is included in being human. But human is not better or worse. There's certainly no sense of the human being as being the creature who is in charge of everything, or the boss, or better than, or... The evolution of lesser creatures come to be humans, or something like that.

[11:32]

But each thing is different, each thing is distinct, and each thing is honored as what it is. So yeah, for human beings, we have to be human, and appreciate that. And appreciate the side of being human in which everything is included. You know, that we don't need something else. Through being human, everything in the world is there. And the same is true for another creature, as that creature. And for an individual, it's the same thing, right? I need to be myself. I have a particular karma, and history, and situation. And I need to embrace that situation and not look for another one. I need to find everything that I need, and everything that could be needed, and could be expressed in my particular situation. And the same with you, you're in a different situation. So you have to find everything in that situation. And it's not a better or worse, or a need to change the situation, but to totally embrace the situation that we're in.

[12:37]

That's Genjo Koan. And find in that situation, everything in the whole universe, there. You could say, another way of looking at it would be to say that, on each moment of existence, or on each moment of time itself, all of existence is carried there. And that when we're alive, we are a particular appearance of all of that. And when we embrace our life, all of it is there for us. So it has to do with time and existence, and the particularity of that appearance, as it is for me and every creature. So, other comments? One quick question. Yeah. Could we hear what Bodhisattva says about blue waves, leaping clear? Oh, Bodhisattva would be very pleased.

[13:39]

Pleased, I guess. Well, that seems like the kind of answer to that. And I didn't pick out any particular... Only one sentence that I... It's one of those texts that, if you start highlighting and underlining, you can underline almost everything. So I was judicious about it. But... Something that I did underline in that particular section is, where it says, this is something that can be understood only by those who have departed from all views and attained true liberation. It cannot be seen with the eyes of those who are eager to be enlightened. Genjo Koan comes forth where this eagerness is removed. What happens at the place where you go beyond being and non-being? And being and non-being mean the first two sentences. The first one being being and the second one non-being.

[14:39]

Only after going beyond do the three realms come together and sentient beings come together. This is Genjo Koan. To tell you the truth, even when we are deluded, we are within the three realms. Even when we are enlightened, we are within the three realms. The three realms do not get riled up at the time of delusion. The three realms do not get crushed at the time of enlightenment. Enlightenment does not heat water. You can't boil an egg, you know. You've got to have a gas range or a fire. Delusion does not lower mountains. Because abundance and lack are gone beyond, delusion, enlightenment, sentient beings and Buddhas are clearly there. This is Buddha Dharma. A common way of thinking is that something novel may appear at the time of enlightenment. You may think that you can eat five bowls of rice and have a luxurious time on top of the altar where flowers are offered.

[15:43]

However, even if you get enlightened, you would be criticized if you did something wrong and you wouldn't be able to eat if you are too laid back. You may think, hmm, it might not be so enjoyable to get enlightened. Then you are way off. You should know that there are delusion and enlightenment even within enlightenment. There are delusion and enlightenment even when we are deluded. To be free within this dynamic mechanism of going beyond, pao, in the midst of delusion and enlightenment, this is practice. In the Genjo Koan, there is no discriminatory thinking. Being and non-being are dropped off as they are, going beyond abundance and lack is itself Genjo Koan. To see the Dharma doctor beyond the dualistic view of delusion and enlightenment is the fundamental I. Investigate thoroughly. So that's a little part of it. That's the end section. Let's see if there's anything else.

[16:50]

It feels like you can hear it from getting out of the way of yourself. Yeah. Letting things be. Anyway. Well, I think we did a pretty good job on the first four sentences. And I appreciate everybody's comments. And I think that we did get a feeling for it. So at two o'clock we will resume with sitting. And we'll go to the next section. So thank you. Is everybody okay? Is it okay to leave the papers and stuff? I think so, yeah. I think nobody will disturb you all. Okay. Let's read two more translations.

[17:55]

So you can pull it out. This one is by Francis Cook. He's a scholar, a Buddhist scholar, and also a very committed and serious practitioner. It's from a book called Sound of the Valley Streams, which is a collection of translations of nine chapters of Shogo Genzo with his comments. So his translation is, When all things are just what they are, delusion and enlightenment exist, religious practice exists, birth exists, death exists, Buddhas exist, and ordinary beings exist. When the myriad things are without self, there is no delusion, no enlightenment,

[19:02]

no Buddhas, no ordinary beings, no birth, no extinction. Since the Buddha way from the beginning transcends fullness and deficiency, there is birth and extinction, delusion and enlightenment, beings and Buddhas. However, though this is the way it is, it is only this. Flowers scatter in our longing, and weeds spring up in our loving. And then this one is from Nishiyama and Stephen, the one I told you about before that's very interpretive also. When all things are the Buddha Dharma, there is enlightenment, illusion, practice, life, death, Buddhas, and sentient beings. When all things are seen not to have any substance,

[20:08]

there is no illusion or enlightenment, no Buddhas or sentient beings. No birth or destruction. Originally, the Buddha way transcends itself and any idea of abundance or lack. Still, there is birth and destruction, illusion and enlightenment, sentient beings and Buddhas. Yet, people hate to see flowers fall and do not like weeds to grow. So, all a little bit different, but after a while they all are the same too. You get the feeling for it, they are all the same. Anyway, just a final note on that first section. So, we are seeing many dimensions to something very simple.

[21:15]

So, now I am reading from the translation by the one I said I would use as the main text actualizing the fundamental point. To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is illusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening. Those who have great realization of delusion are Buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded about realization are sentient beings. Further, there are those who continue realizing beyond realization. Those who are in delusion throughout delusion. When Buddhas are truly Buddhas, they do not necessarily notice that they are Buddhas.

[22:22]

However, they are actualized Buddhas who go on actualizing Buddhas. So, that is in this version by Cos and Akinrishi, that is the second section. So, to carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening. So, this is in a way, I have a note here, that it is like a figure in ground drawing. You know those drawings where you look at it and the same drawing looks one way and that looks another way. So, this is about the interplay between myriad things and self. So, if we carry ourselves forward and project ourselves onto the myriad things,

[23:32]

thinking, this is me and I am it, which is true. But if we project ourselves forward onto all those things, that is delusion. Always keep in mind, though, that delusion is the Genjo koan of delusion. So, when he says, that is delusion, don't take that to be, oh that is bad, that is wrong. Because even delusion, as such, appreciated as such, is Genjo koan. Remember, this is the fall, we fall and the flowers burn. So, keeping that in mind, to carry yourself forward and project yourself onto things as if they were you, is delusion. But that the myriad things come forth and experience themselves, is awakening. So, in a way, it is the same picture, only you see it differently.

[24:36]

This relationship between myriad things and oneself. Because the myriad things and oneself are not really separate. There is this identity between myriad things and oneself. But do you allow the myriad things to be themselves in being non-different from you, or do you insist on projecting yourself onto them? So, and also to say that we can understand this now, and what follows, as being an enlargement on the opening sentences. Having said these opening sentences, having set up the paradox and the dynamic interplay between delusion and enlightenment, between the existence of things and the non-existence of things, between the universality of everything being the same, the individuality, having set all that up, now we are going to unwind, unravel the thread.

[25:42]

So, this is the first unraveling of that thread. The relationship between the myriad things and oneself. Now, those who have great realization of delusion are buddhas. Not that buddhas are ones who have left delusion behind and entered enlightenment or entered realization, but just the opposite. Buddhas are the ones who have completely seen what delusion is. That enlightenment is not another thing besides delusion. Enlightenment is really seeing what delusion is. So, in other words, practically speaking, when we practice and we have afflicted emotions or difficulties, and we think, oh man, if I was enlightened or if I was a better person, or however we explain these things to ourselves, I wouldn't be having this, I'm sorry, I'm such a schmo that I have to be doing this. So, according to this, we would say, no, this afflictive emotion that's arising is the agency of my improvement.

[26:52]

If only I could thoroughly realize this trouble that's arising in me, thoroughly be aware of it, that would be enlightenment. That would be freedom from it. Not running away from it, you see, but totally embracing it. So, Buddhas are not ones who leave delusion behind and enter enlightenment. They're the ones who totally enter delusion, willingly enter delusion and realize it for what it is. On the other hand, those who are greatly deluded about realization are sentient beings. For realization you could read also enlightenment. Those who are greatly deluded about enlightenment are sentient beings, because realization, enlightenment, actualization, these things are all kind of synonyms, with slightly different flavors, but they're all in the same tense. So, sentient beings, you know, in Buddhist thought and Buddhist logic, sentient beings are the opposite of Buddhas. You know, like black and white or up and down, Buddhas are sentient beings.

[27:56]

So, Buddhas are the ones who thoroughly realize what delusion is. Sentient beings are the ones who are confused about enlightenment. So, Buddhas know there's no such thing as enlightenment. They only know to totally realize what delusion is. Sentient beings think, they project this thing called enlightenment. That they think that they don't have, that they would like to receive or enter into later on to improve. And because they have that view, that's why they're sentient beings. They understood that there was no such thing and that there was only their delusion and they fully entered into their delusion and they wouldn't be sentient beings, they would be Buddhas. So, this is, you know, a kind of, of course, funny thing, where it's the opposite of what we would think, right? We think Buddhas are the ones who are enlightened. Sentient beings are the ones who are deluded.

[28:57]

So, it's totally the opposite. Further, there are those who continue realizing beyond realization. So, Dogen has another chapter in Shogoginso called Going Beyond Buddha. It's like that, going beyond Buddha. So, of course, enlightenment or realization, if it were a destination, an ending point, an accomplishment, you could see where this would be impossible, because it would immediately... But what happened then? Then what? Well, then the mind and concepts would assert themselves onto the state of enlightenment and then enlightenment would no longer be enlightenment. So, that realization must be constantly beyond realization.

[30:02]

It's not an end point. It must be... What realization must be is the going beyond realization, moment after moment, which is to say, basically confronting conditions anew every moment. Otherwise, realization is a sort of ideology. Well, now I have reality figured out, so then the next moment I know what that is already, before it even came. And then this would be delusion right away. Because it would be... In meditation, you can see this very easily. When you sit in meditation, and you have a wonderful moment, maybe you have had a wonderful moment like this, where everything falls away, and there's a kind of... just a real purity of mind and a real release. And then you say, Oh boy, that's great! And finally you did it. And then immediately, the deluded, confused mind returns

[31:06]

on the identification of and the grasping of. So that clearly then, realization must be the going beyond realization. It can't be the whole, defining the completion of anything. It must be the constant readiness to be surprised, readiness to experience something for the first time, time after time. So there are those who continue realizing beyond realization, who are in delusion throughout delusion. So, thoroughly in delusion. And this, the way it's written here, and we should compare, but here it's not clear whether... This is one and the same. The ones who are realizing realization beyond realization are the same ones who realize delusion throughout delusion. This is clearly how it's written.

[32:07]

There are also those who attain enlightenment on top of enlightenment and there are those who are further deluded in the midst of delusion. My guess is that it's probably ambiguous in the original, on purpose. But it could be, on the one hand, those who are enlightened, which is to say, go beyond enlightenment, in their enlightenment, and there are those who are really deluded on top of delusion. Opposites. Or I think it would also be a good interpretation to say that those who are deluded throughout delusion are the same ones who are enlightened beyond enlightenment. That these would be synonymous, or two different ways of looking at the same thing. In other words, deluded throughout delusion is realizing delusion. Buddhists who realize delusion. Anyway, I'll try to

[33:16]

look it up into it in a share of books. Someone says about that I forgot. See if I have a note. Yeah, I think I'll... I'll read you some of the stuff that Nishiyari says in a second. Let me just finish a little section. When Buddhists are truly deluded, when they are truly Buddhists, they do not necessarily notice that they are Buddhists. Or they don't notice that they are Buddhists. Because if they noticed that they were Buddhists, then they would need to plunge out of being Buddhists. See, what do you mean? I'm Buddha. I would automatically be

[34:18]

out of Buddha and into Aries. So... It sort of allows, and maybe they do sometimes though. Well, in this... Yeah, in this... Yeah, in this one it does. I'm not sure. When... When Buddhists are indeed the Buddhists, there is no need to be self-conscious of being Buddhists. Yeah, which is different. And this one is... It still doesn't say that they're not. It just says there's no need to. Right. When Buddhists are truly Buddhists, there is no need for the self to understand that it is Buddha. So they might. They might have that thought or have that concept. But... Buddha. And Buddha said, I am Buddha. I am Shakyamuni Buddha.

[35:20]

So anyway, they don't necessarily notice that they are Buddhas. And I have a little marginal note here from the commentary by Yasutani, which says, whatever we completely assimilate doesn't come up into consciousness just as food assimilated is blood and stomach. It... Just as food assimilated is blood and the stomach doesn't feel full. Yasutani says. In other words, when you really digest something and take it in, you don't feel it necessarily. And one... You know, like Buddha, of course, said he was Buddha, but... I would say that he... He couldn't help it. Yeah, my note says here, Buddha knew he was Buddha but he didn't write home. Yeah. So he knew he had to be somebody. And he thought, well, if I go around saying I'm not Buddha,

[36:25]

then it would be confusing, you know. So, yes, of course, everybody has to have some kind of name and address and everything. So mine is Buddha and I'm a wandering mendicant. But who I really am, is totally unknown. But I won't go into that right now kind of thing. Yeah. There was one of the translations that you read that said that if we're Buddha, then we don't necessarily need for the self to cognize that we're Buddha. Yeah. And I think that fits really well with other sentences or other themes. That same theme appears in other places, particularly in thinking of when we read as the Self-Enjoyment Samadhi, which is particularly bad, that it isn't a matter of what the self recognizes. That being Buddha

[37:26]

or not being Buddha isn't a function of conscious cognition. Yeah. Right. That's the key thing there, that it's not a matter of... That which is an object of conscious cognition is limited. It can't be the unlimited, which is Buddha. In the last sentence, though they don't necessarily notice that they are Buddhas, they are actualized Buddhas who go on actualizing Buddhas, going beyond, again, in the sense of going beyond Buddha. Nishiyara Bokosan has some very interesting things to say about this that really surprised me and gave me some new insight and appreciation. I don't know if I can quote briefly and get it. Here's some parts that I

[38:31]

highlight. Now, what is it to carry the self forward and illuminate the myriad dharmas? The first one. To carry the self forward and illuminate the myriad dharmas. What is that? This is to look for the dharma outside of the mind. The self stays on one side while you let your mind run about in the myriad dharmas somewhere else, saying that you want to be enlightened, you want to be a scholar and so forth, saying the self is looking outside. This is the domain of delusion. To carry the self forward, the same one still, to carry the self forward does not mean that self and dharmas are in opposition. The self here, this is a very different interpretation than we would usually have, the self here means the self of the entire world. He's not interpreting

[39:33]

self as meaning me. Here he's interpreting self as meaning the self of the entire world. At this point, each of the myriad dharmas is the self, and there are no myriad dharmas outside the self. To practice realizing the self of the entire world is to carry the self and to be at a loss. Since it is delusion in the midst of all Buddha dharmas, there is no enlightenment outside of delusion. So it's a totally different interpretation. Here he's affirming the idea of carrying the self forward and illuminate the myriad dharmas is delusion, which sounds like a bad idea, improved upon by the Buddha himself. He says, here self means the self of all things.

[40:34]

To see that all things are the self of your mind, and to do what I was saying in the beginning, to project the self onto all things, or to see that all things are you, is delusion in the sense of delusion meaning enlightenment. Delusion here does not mean to be at a loss. Since it is delusion in the midst of all Buddha dharmas, there is no enlightenment outside of delusion. It's a little hard to grasp, I know. But that's what he says. It has to do with whether or not you're conscious of it. The second one. It does that thing where everything is upside down. You move it, and you think, oh this is it, he's moving over here and rewriting everything. Yeah, that was your point earlier. The idea of reversing, you understand it, you think you understand it, so you reverse it.

[41:35]

And certainly the logic of Genjokon allows that kind of a move. So he's reversing it. If you do that with a large self, it works. Yes, that's what he's saying. He's saying here that self means large self. Small self projected. Yeah, he'd probably agree. Right. He's playing with one of Darwin's fundamental tricks. So let's see. The myriad dharmas advance and so on, and affirm the self is practice. People who don't practice don't understand it. This is not something that is known to those who don't practice. To carry the self forward and illuminate the myriad dharmas is delusion. The myriad dharmas come forth

[42:37]

and illuminate the self could also be delusion. Even though it says in the text it's enlightenment. Or, if the myriad dharmas come forth and illuminate the self is enlightenment, then carrying the self forward and illuminating the myriad dharmas could be enlightenment too. So he's saying don't be fooled by the fact that it says this is delusion and this is enlightenment. So it could be the opposite. It could just as well be the opposite. So how would you have ever known Darwin? How would you know that? Just let me read one more sentence. And in a way, this next sentence does suggest that. Nevertheless, that delusion is delusion and enlightenment is enlightenment is clearly stated here. What's the difference? You should investigate this thoroughly. So, you know,

[43:41]

that sounds like avoiding the issue or something like that. But actually, it's not. Because what he's saying is that, you know, somewhat in line with Lee's point that you read these sentences and you think you understand them and you know this is delusion and that's enlightenment. So we know on the one hand we can say, yes, it's true. Delusion is delusion. Enlightenment is enlightenment. One should be clear about this. Let's not mistake one for the other. On the other hand, when you're so sure that you know that this is delusion and that's enlightenment, you might not be so sure about that. So what you need to do is not have any hard and fast concepts about this but actually investigate your life moment after moment and see what is what. So I think that what it's doing is you could say

[44:42]

now he's sort of in what he says here he kind of negates the metaphysics of Dogen's seemingly language. Dogen seems to be making he negates them all and he says there is no metaphysics there's only epistemology. In other words, just look, just investigate. There is no way to decide what something is in any way that's repeatable. There's only our investigation, our readiness now to confront our own experience. And even the small self and the big self is not so clear all the time what that is which is which. Because certainly the big self could be a projection of the small self could be a fantasy of the small self. And the small self, my little emotion, my little desires could actually be a manifestation of all of reality

[45:44]

if I stand within it in the proper way. And so many crimes of history have been committed in the name of the big self. And so people who have felt themselves to be totally unselfish and totally looking out for the welfare of humanity have committed tremendous crimes with that thought in their minds apparently one would hope not really understanding what they were doing thinking they were doing good and not. So one doesn't know one can't identify in other words what is delusion and what is enlightenment by a set of criteria that would be clear in all cases. So

[46:44]

OK, enough of that. So now let's open up for further discussion. Well the precepts in Zen from a Zen perspective are the same thing in that the precepts are also not hard and fast rules. It's not obvious what killing or non-killing would be. It's not obvious. So the precepts are understood to be koans of conduct rather than rules. So in the same way that he says what's the difference between you know delusion and enlightenment you should investigate this thoroughly. You could also say what's the difference between stealing and non-stealing you should investigate this thoroughly. It's because

[47:49]

the more intimate you get with conduct the more you need to really respond to conditions as we find them. It's not always so obvious. So bringing up the precepts is a good thing because actually the whole logic of Genjo Koan in the Soto Zen and not only Soto Zen but in Zen the same logic is applied to study the precepts. The fact that there are different levels of understanding and practicing the precepts and that all the levels have to be honored and understood. On one level it's very clear the difference between stealing and non-stealing. You know you don't take something that's not yours. And that has to be

[48:50]

just like delusion is delusion and enlightenment is enlightenment and the two are not the same thing. That level has to be honored. But on another level it's not so clear. On the absolute level one has to consider deeply and be open to surprise and new insight and not be and this this prevents us from moralizing and breaking the precepts in the name of keeping them. So we have to approach them fresh with our whole heart and our whole body and mind each time. Yeah. Are there things to say about this part? Yeah. I was one thing I was thinking about was this Buddha's not necessarily noticing your Buddha's that they go and act like a Buddha. So I think

[49:51]

you could when you were saying that Buddha knew you were Buddha it's like knowing you could so there's one thing that's in the name but then there's the function what it means to be or our ideas or the notion of what it would mean to be Buddha. So you could say I am somewhere I am you can hear me longer or whatever but what it would actually mean to someone else or how that actually that part is sort of unknown. That's kind of how I was thinking about that. You don't necessarily notice or even know what that practice is what your life the life is and that would be to go on how I interpret it is go on actualizing or realizing who this would be. I sort of tie that with awakening so that there would be some way

[50:51]

that your life is continually directed towards awakening and maybe there's awakening around you know there's sort of something some aliveness around you but you wouldn't necessarily know it. Yeah you wouldn't know it you wouldn't know it like you knew an object of consciousness. Or that you can know that I can know anymore what's going on in your world. I don't know if that's an accurate overlay. This is the first time or maybe I missed it but with this action here it was realization and stuff like that being and stuff but here it's they go on actualizing action means like behavioral action bringing it into reality yeah constantly

[51:51]

it's activity it's not some sort of state or something It's almost a statement of karma you know actualized Buddhists that karmically create more Buddhas I'm trying to see how Cook translates that Is it possible to authenticate authenticate yeah we are Buddhas and we come to authenticate this Buddha authenticate actualize bring into existence yeah I'm sorry I wonder if it could also relate to teaching others to become Buddhas yeah maybe so When Buddhas are truly Buddhas they do not necessarily notice that they are Buddhas however they are actualized Buddhas go on actualizing Buddha

[52:53]

yeah so they they manifest so this is the second part contrasts with the first although in other words although they don't necessarily inwardly identify as Buddhists their activity manifests Buddha so they're not thinking oh I'm Buddha this is great but they're manifesting activity so that's why I think it's good the idea that teaching others is good in effect whether or not they're literally teaching other people their activity is bringing forth all around them a Buddha yeah so that's the idea maybe think of it

[53:55]

more as a process rather than a thing right an activity an activity a manifestation rather than a particular state of mind or a thing at all and this is all in contrast to the previous paragraphs which basically are saying there is no enlightenment there is no Buddha there's delusion there's thoroughly penetrating delusion however given that that's so Buddha there are Buddhas see there are Buddhas but the Buddhas don't think of themselves as Buddhas they only manifest and act out of Buddhism but the activity of Buddha is really there yeah I'll leave it to you so I would say I mean he doesn't do that what does he say yet they are realized Buddhas and they continue to realize when Buddhas are genuinely Buddhas there is no need for them to be conscious that they are Buddhas

[54:55]

yet they are realized Buddhas and they continue to realize Buddha so the word realize doesn't do it doesn't give that flavor there's a lot of I forget now the words in Japanese but the there have been many discussions about you know how to translate these words because it's so important and sometimes realization realization is used sometimes and actualization is sometimes used for the same word manifestation I can't you know I can't remember whether there is another word for that or not Cleary's translation is like the Abbe Waddell uses realization in a way a way it stated it reminded me of what you were saying before about the nature of what realization is that it isn't anything that realization is going on realizing

[55:56]

Cleary says when Buddhas are indeed the Buddhas there is no need to be self conscious of being Buddhas nevertheless it is realizing Buddhahood Buddhas go on realizing so it's happening so it's happening we don't want you to think it's not happening so like when you're completely doing something you don't necessarily know that you're doing it in the same way that you might know that you're doing something that you're not completely doing because there is somebody left over to look and see what's going on it's a kind of like self consciousness you know is I always like to distinguish between self consciousness and full awareness or full commitment to an activity because when you're

[56:56]

self conscious about something that means that you're not completely doing what you're doing right you're a little bit removed from it and you're worried about yourself in the activity and so you're quite conscious of what you're doing in a sense you know we can say you're aware of what you're doing in fact you're too aware of it your awareness becomes a gap or a barrier to flowing with your activity but when you're totally immersed in what you're doing then you're not self conscious at all and in a certain way you can say you're not at all aware of what's going on and yet exactly because you're not aware in this sense of what's going on it's completely going on and having this big effect and it has power so I think this is something like what is being said well let's plunge on because think of all we have to do here when you see forms or hear sounds

[57:57]

well let me just read you one before we leave that let me just read you one last thing to initially focus on which was also very interesting to me this is a quote from his commentary when the self is completely the self there is no self it's just what I was saying when the self is completely the self there is no self and then he says there is no way to practice without the self this is the guide post for practice in our school there is no way to practice without the self this is the guide post for practice in our school so I bring that out because you know in classical buddhist thought there is this whole idea about no self and we have the idea of going beyond the

[59:01]

self and leaving the self behind etc. etc. but here he says this self and completely lining up with our self which is to say this is the co part co on the individuality to completely line ourselves and immerse ourselves 100% in our individuality in this particular person at this particular moment in this particular activity he says that's the hallmark of our school so there is no practice without the self who is it who said that? Nishiyara Gokusan this guy that I have been bringing up all the time he was a Soto Zen monk who lived he died in 1910 and he was born in 1821 and he wrote this great commentary to Dogen and this

[60:01]

where is this from? this is a unpublished work in progress translated by Mel Weitzman and Kaz Tanahashi so along with that that would be in keeping the building the using leaving practice out in number one leaving practice out because there is no self that's an interesting thought yeah and as we saw from Gokusan's comment your self is not only the psychological self but also each moment each thing has self all dharmas have self that needs to be totally become

[61:02]

itself and then there is no self yeah so ok when you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body and mind you grasp things directly or intimately also you can say unlike things and their reflections in the mirror and unlike the moon and its reflection in the water when one side is illuminated the other side is dark when you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body and mind you grasp things directly unlike things and their reflections in the mirror and unlike the moon and its reflection in the water when one side is illuminated the other side is dark when you

[62:22]

see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body and mind you grasp things intimately so this is like zazen when you sit yes it would also be like losing yourself yes although you have to be careful because there are ways to lose yourself I work on sculpture and sometimes I don't know you are just working yes there is nobody there there is no judgment or anything there is just the activity itself you don't even realize almost that you are doing what you are yes and you say my god 3 hours went by

[63:22]

and I was 5 minutes yes total immersion so yes what I was going to ask you was struggling with the difference between being totally unaware and totally immersed yes I know it is tricky because in a way they are very close just like to be deluded throughout delusion and to be enlightened beyond enlightenment might be very close if not the same hard to tell so maybe that is a pretty good explanation and when you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body and mind you grasp things intimately and usually this is understood as the experience of really letting go of any self-consciousness and reflection and grasping and holding on and

[64:22]

purposeful activity and just completely being present so that you know one of the ways that sometimes you can look at zazen or talk about zazen is it is a case of the body and the mind being totally aligned with each other because there is no thought in the mind when you are really still outside of an awareness of the body breathing movement and posture you bring the mind completely in alignment with that so body and mind are one integrated completely integrated and when in this situation a body and mind completely integrated when a sound is heard it's very vivid you know very intimate that's a good word it feels very intimate and even the same actually when a thought then would emerge in such a state even the thought no different from the sound would be received

[65:22]

very very intimately so in this special condition of total immersion in one's life this is the description this is how the when one side is illuminated the other side is dark now I've been confused about this sentence for twenty years but I have more light cast on it now than before because some of the comments of books on health and other commentaries this time when I studied it seemed clear and the reason why it's so confusing to me is because these images these metaphors used here things in their reflection in the mirror and the moon and its reflection in the water these very same metaphors are usually used in relation to enlightenment and so

[66:24]

it's so then if you take it that way it's hard to kind of understand the next part of the metaphor particularly when the word unlike is there because does one side of this illuminate or the other side dark does that mean confusion and limitation or does that mean awakening do the first metaphors refer to awakening or do they refer to limitation I think the reflections of both of them in this case are acknowledging the two dimensionality of the reflected image we know that whatever is being reflected is three dimensional and also has some movement in space and time and that the final clause about one side of the image

[67:29]

and the other is dark might be referring to how this has been translated and interpreted from the first sentence of engaging body and mind and that the illumination and the dark sides are more three dimensional and it's looking at the distinction between a three dimensional reflected image and a three dimensional reality that goes back to the immersion reintegration of all the aspects so there is the dark and the light in an integrated entity yeah reflection

[68:44]

in water is two dimensional unlike that that's not how the life of the actualized Buddha is it's like the rest of the sentence one side illuminated when one side is illuminated the other side is dark now that is a kind of technical metaphor for the notion which is completely central to the whole idea of Genjo Koan that see there's a whole tradition of the use of imagery in literature light and dark imagery light and dark and light refers to ko differentiation distinction just like in the light of the sun things

[69:45]

appear many things appear there's many different things you turn the lights out and everything appears as one right I mean if this was pitch dark in here visually we would not see numerous persons but when the sun is there or light is there we see numerous persons so light means individuality and darkness means one so the idea here is that when one when you when one thing is illuminated everything is there in other words in one activity all activities are there when I fully engage with one breath in one moment of my life everything is in that one moment again this is totally central the whole idea that Dogon is advancing here in Gangel Cohen that we

[70:46]

don't need to go from unenlightenment to enlightenment we don't need to gain more knowledge and gain more insight we don't need to go all around the world and accumulate more teachings and more of this and more of that all we need to do is let go of everything and completely enter into a moment any moment of our lives and everything in the whole world is there and this saying of Dogon and this idea of Dogon is the crucial point of Soto Zen liturgy and the detail of Soto Zen practice because thinking about this point when Dogon set up his monastery he said that well this being true then we should get involved in every detail of the monastic life because when

[71:46]

we pick up our bowl before the meal the whole universe is in that bowl when we put the bowl down the whole universe comes down when we put on our robe we're covering the whole world with our robe when we walk the entire universe walks if we bring ourselves completely to each moment then there's a sense of being the universe so this is the reason why basically when you think about it it's basically the reason why we have greens restaurant and all these cookbooks and all this stuff that's the reason why because there's this emphasis on paying attention and doing things fully then we get into doing kitchen work and one thing leads to another and so on so this is really the emphasis so this is the emphasis more than understanding buddhism more important to completely

[72:47]

engage in the moment of activity than it is to understand many teachings and know many sutras and so on and so on and this again as I told you last night Dogen's biography this is what Dogen learned from these head cook monks when he wanted to basically what happened is he wanted to study discuss with them buddhism and they said what's the point of discussing buddhism I have to go and dry mushrooms if you think that I should be sitting here discussing buddhism and not drying the mushrooms then you don't understand buddhism at all that's what they said to him so because of that I think that he was very impressed by that and then he found as he studied more deeply in the scriptures and he meditated more he found out that there was a profound meaning to their lessons and this is what he's saying here so unlike

[73:48]

situations in which there's two dimensional like you said two dimensional situations when you fully engage in a moment of your life it's completely three dimensional which is to say it's all inclusive so think of all the money you can save on travel you know and different things that you don't need to buy all you got to do is completely enter into whatever the moment is of your life and then you don't need any other stuff it's very economical what is the other side that he's referring to he is setting up another side that's dark you're pointing to the when something illuminated everything was there yes well darkness means oneness when you're in differentiation oneness is there all things now again I hasten to say that this is one interpretation you know and I have no doubt that the words

[74:48]

will support other interpretations and the opposite interpretation that's the way this piece of writing is but anyway I feel good about this interpretation because it's the new one for me I'll get over it I'm sure I just discovered this reading and you know I've studied this thing for 20 years so it's fun how about when you're completely in delusion and enlightenment whatever that might mean is not there or whenever you're completely you know well if you were completely in delusion if you were thoroughly giving yourself to delusion then this would be enlightenment this would be realization delusion it just says those who are thoroughly realizing delusion are enlightened but if you but in fact if you were somehow sort of I mean maybe it's just another way of saying what you're saying when you're

[75:48]

seeing the particular when you're in this delusion of me myself and that sort of one or that larger container is not in the forefront of your mind but always you know with Genjo Cohen whether you know it or not whether you're appreciated or not or aware of it or not Genjo Cohen is always Genjo Cohen in your life that's why when you do Zazen in the way that we give instruction and that we understand Zazen in our lineage we don't say now when you're not thinking and your mind isn't wandering and you're sitting up straight then you're doing Zazen when your mind is wandering and something else is going on you screw it up and you're not doing Zazen now and you have to come back to your breath and then you're doing Zazen because Zazen

[76:49]

is there when your mind is wandering enough it's too bad for you that you don't know it you can't appreciate it at that moment but that doesn't mean it's not so so this is another thing about Soto Zen that's very very common and very important which is to say just doing it regardless of how well you do it or how poorly you do it is the most important thing because enlightenment is there whether you tap into it or not it's there anyway and so that's true for our life all the time so that's why everybody you know you bow to oh you know Buddha they might not appreciate that they're Buddha but actually every moment of their lives is Genjo Koan whether they know it or not even if they never heard of Genjo Koan it's true because that's the nature of existence that's the nature of our life so it's a very inclusive kind of

[77:51]

approach nothing outside of it and this is the criticism of it exactly the criticism of it it's so inclusive that you can't get anywhere so it's criticized in that way yeah I was gonna say I was just wondering whether the light and dark or the illumined one side is illumined and the other side is dark might be drawn from Taoism and the yin yang symbolism because we in our culture tend to identify dark with bad right but in Chinese culture dark is just the other side of light and it's equally good yeah it definitely has that influence because this teaching using light and dark and that imagery is Chinese it's not Indian

[78:52]

it's a Chinese way of dealing these teachings are certainly in Indian Buddhism but the particular imagery and poetic imagery of using light and dark is Chinese and Chinese Buddhist thought was certainly very much influenced by Taoist and Confucianist ways of looking at the world so you're right about that yeah that influenced Zen one thing that I've been kind of struck by is how little I hear Daoism mentioned since I've been studying Zen because it had a big impact on because that's where Zen came to Japan from yeah well there's various approaches to Zen and you could emphasize the Buddhist part more or you could emphasize the Taoist part more and I think that our particular stream of Zen emphasizes the Buddhist part

[79:52]

more because I think Dogen did Dogen really emphasized the Buddhist part more there were lots of movements in Buddhism in Chinese and Japanese history where it was kind of mixed with Daoism and had a much more Daoist flavor different lineages different teachers but this one Dogen I think was more strongly Buddhist oriented and maybe but at the same time Zen has so much illogic to it and that seems to really join Daoism to where illogic because the Buddha was very logical but Lao Tzu is very illogical and we have a lot of the illogical side in Zen yeah well early Buddhism does not at all or very little use the rhetoric of paradox to talk about the teachings Zen of course does and Daoism

[80:52]

does but there was a you know a great Indian philosopher who also did it so it's not unknown Indian thought Indian Buddhist thought but it just that it came later than Shakyamuni Buddha's time because I think that when you do try to describe religious experience in language you usually encounter paradox that's true in Western religion and Western thought as well and it came up in Indian thought just because language doesn't you know you come up against the boundary of language and that means paradox yeah so oh I just wanted to mention that note six in moving the mudra that seems to reflect that

[81:52]

interpretation you just gave oh does it but yeah so it says in direct realization some things and the object include each other in darkness everything is included and there is no sense of boundaries yeah yeah again Suzuki Hiroshi often talked about we take this very limited posture in zazen you couldn't be more restricted than sitting zazen you can't move you can't do anything you can't you know sitting there in this very small space so it's extremely restricted but through the restriction of zazen you could realize limitlessness okay let's

[82:54]

forge on I think we're doing good we're digesting this right yeah we're not slumping off yet no we're doing good the next one is very famous many of these phrases are very famous and you've heard them before I'm sure but this is perhaps the most famous of all of Dogen's sayings to study the Buddha way is to study the self to study the self is to forget the self forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things when actualized by myriad things your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away no trace of realization remains and this no trace continues endlessly and I

[83:54]

think I'm going to read you a couple of other various translations to learn the Buddha way is to learn one's own self to learn one's self is to forget one's self to forget one's self is to be confirmed by all dharmas to be confirmed by all dharmas is to affect the casting off one's own body and mind and the bodies and minds of others as well all traces of enlightenment disappear and this traceless enlightenment is continued on and on endlessly and one more says study the Buddha way is to study the self to study the self is to forget the self

[84:54]

to forget the self is to be authenticated by the myriad things to be authenticated actualized confirmed by the myriad things is to drop off the body and mind of one's self and others there is remaining content traces of enlightenment and one must eternally emerge from this resting there is remaining content with traces of enlightenment and one must eternally emerge from this resting there is still a lot of segregation there but I think it's really after a while all these translations are okay because that

[85:55]

is traceless this traceless enlightenment goes on because you're tired you sort of merge into a big entity but the idea I'll just do the end part first no trace of realization remains and this no trace continues endlessly it's very much as we said above those who continue realizing beyond realization this point about there's no resting place there's no definition or sign of enlightenment or object of consciousness called enlightenment that we could hold that it must be constantly going beyond itself so no trace of realization remains and this no trace continues endlessly there are remaining content with traces of enlightenment and one must eternally emerge from this resting so the sense

[86:56]

of constantly going on constantly that idea is the same words are quite different yeah but he's active he's talking about action right the one that says emerging is resting yeah while Ape talks about a state which continues yeah clearly bridges the two because there is ceasing the traces of enlightenment which causes one to forever leave the traces of enlightenment which is cessation hmm I don't believe I believe in a cessation there is ceasing the traces of enlightenment which causes one to forever leave the traces of enlightenment which is cessation oh yeah the cessation

[87:56]

is continually leaving the traces of enlightenment so this is constantly and you know like this is over and over again in many expressions in Zen discussed the idea of not sticking to Zen not sticking to enlightenment not sticking to realization not resting not resting don't make a nest for yourself anywhere you know not because you know you shouldn't do that but because if you do that suffering ensues and you take enlightenment and you make it into confusion which causes suffering so you want to meet each moment free from enlightenment or delusion or anything just there so let's go

[88:57]

to the beginning and see whether starting at the beginning of this little section illuminates the end here to study the Buddha way is to study the self and remember here the self means both I think both the psychological self you know me my experience of myself and my afflictive emotions and my thoughts and feelings but it also means the self of all dharmas the self of all things things everything inside and outside so so Buddhism is not some study outside of things it's to study the Buddha way is to study reality or to study the world as we find it so this is often this section here is often given as again just like above as steps and stages understanding again that steps and stages always each step includes all others

[89:58]

so this is the first step is to recognize that studying the Buddha way is not studying something outside of oneself or outside of self or outside of the world it's to study the nature of the world inside and out but then when you do that when you really appreciate that and you really study closely just like we said last night about the physicists then self is no longer substantially there so you forget about it to study the Buddha way is to study the self but then when you find when you do come to study the self with some clarity you forget the self so this is an important step because you forget the self because number one you see that the self inside

[90:58]

and the outside are not really different from each other so why would you be more concerned about your own thoughts and emotions than you would be about the sunset or the cry of a bird and also when you study the self thoroughly enough you can see that like everything else inside and outside appear and pass away and nothing stays very long so the self that you formerly were worried about and tried to improve and help out by studying Buddhism you now see is something that appears and disappears of its own accord and doesn't really need any help it isn't really there in the way that you thought it was before so you can forget about it so in other words and this all comes as a result of making that study and really looking and investigating so to study the self is to forget the self and then to forget

[91:58]

the self is to be actualized or confirmed or what's the other word that Cook used authenticated that's a good one I like that one so in other words one of the things that I have observed is that somehow it's such a funny thing why would we care why would it bother us you know that we are authenticated or are not authenticated and yet you know this is a very deep human problem I found that we're not confirmed or not authenticated or not somehow given permission on some cosmic level to be who we are this is a huge problem I mean it's the stupidest thing in the world well what is that nothing but yet

[92:59]

it truly does appear as a deep human problem self-esteem yeah yeah yeah yeah that's right that's right yeah self-esteem and all this whole study that's been done in our society over the last 20-30 years about all the people who have been wounded in their early life and therefore do not have a feeling of being authenticated being confirmed being so on so on but I don't think that that problem is limited to people who have had certain kinds of family systems and so on I think it's more glaring in those cases and more debilitating but I think it is the human problem in some way and so here you see that to forget the self is then to have the whole world be confirmative of what one is not in a way of like I'm the greatest of all you know something like that I'm better than somebody else no that's

[94:00]

the opposite of it not that I'm better but that you know this life is what it is and it's completely what it is and honored as such as is every other life to have that feeling of being authenticated confirmed actualized or whatever word you want to use is the fruit of this stage that we see in the whole world around us that kind of authentication so that's what when we have studied the self and then forgotten the self seeing the self as non different from other selves and also as empty of any substantiality thereby forgetting then it's as if the world steps forward and confirms itself but not as the separate limited self that we started out with but as the self that we know to be non different from other things and also empty of any substantiality when actualized

[95:00]

by myriad things then your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away and this saying here is another really famous saying of Dogen because the story of Dogen's enlightenment experience involves this phrase dropping away body and mind and the story goes and I'm sure most of you have heard it but for those of you who haven't heard this little story it's very short Dogen was in his monastery the teacher I told you that he finally found a Zen teacher that he really felt good about and so he enrolled in the monastery and the custom in that monastery there was this seems like unbelievable but actually there was

[95:50]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ