[It sounds like Suzuki is writing on a blackboard while talking.]
...... it is called atman, or big self, changing to small self [laughs] especially teacher self [laughs], and, you know, big self changing to small self. And there were many various laymen with independent religions. Religions for sake of religion, you know, not for sake of people. So, Buddha started--Buddha at first he wanted to be, you know, instead to protect his people as a--he preached. But he found out it was not possible. So, he tried to protect his people with true way. And he studied—he studied various religions, and he found out, all the religions at that time was not so good. And he started his own religion for people, with--to help people. That is, I think, Buddhism.

So many teachers, even many teacher at that time combated the Buddhists. So, maybe he put an end to all religion [laughs]. But we—we have saying, Buddha gave us poison [laughs]. Buddha started some poisonous religion against [laughs]. But that is not his part[?] [laughs]. His followers hold so[?].

And if it’s--all the religion is good, if we studied with sincerity for the people, and through and through, it is good. And we need various religions because there are many different types of people. So, each one of us need his own religion. So, strictly speaking, there is a need[?] --should be his own. And, when we have our own teachers, we experience this enough it become a true teaching, and we can communicate with each other. This is also true.

Some other question? Hai.

Student A: The other night you compared practice to an unbroken band of pure white silk [68-07-22?]…

Suzuki: Um, hah.

Student A: for ten thousand miles.

Suzuki: Ah, hah.

Student A: And—and I don’t understand if that’s something which we attain, and our practice becomes purer and stronger, so that we can say, as our practice was beginning, it was not like that. But as it became—as it became a better practice, then we experience our practice in that way. Or rather, that once we understood pure practice, we would see that all of our practice has been of that type. Does it same process[?]?

Roshi: Hmm, yeah. It is both, you know. Before—before you—before you realize our religion are practice, through and through, there were religions, you know. But after you understood religion, there is no religion because we are already with spirit[?] and we have—we have progress with same problem. What we are doing is not different from everyone is doing. We find out this truth after, you know, going through the various understanding and experience. We come to the certain point again, and on and on we follow this way with spirit[?]. That is, you know, the point after you went through various religious—religious experience. Like--and at the same time it is starting point of religion. So both. It doesn’t make much sense [laughs, laughter]. It looks like some are drowning [laughs]. I am very [laughs].

Suzuki: Do you have some question?

Student B: I--I can’t choose to become freedom now. [Laughs, laughter.]

Suzuki: You can’t choose freedom now [laughs]. Hai.

Student C: Would you explain to us again what you mean by the beginner’s mind.

Suzuki: Beginner’s mind—beginner’s mind is, you know, when you started, just started your study, you have no—no precede, you know—no preconceived idea. You don’t know anything about Buddhism. And you open your whole mind to the Buddhas. That is beginner’s mind. After you went through--but if you study our way, you feel as if you, you know, understood Buddhism and as if you attained something bigger. That is quite usual. But at that time you thus lose your beginner’s mind. So, if you feel, you know, even though you study Buddhism, you really--you should like to study more. And your study is not good enough. Then what you study is Buddhism. Do you understand? That is beginner’s mind. And that beginner’s mind is also big mind. Clive[?] is my answer is acceptable? Hai.

Student D: Many times I—I think that beginners they know more than when after started. They knew that—that they don’t know anything. And when you first come, you think you know enough.

Suzuki: Yeah. But what we are studying, you know, like this--in our lecture is, you know, to have some outline of, you know, Buddhism, intellectually, you know. Without some outline of teaching, or suggestion, you cannot practice, you know. You cannot study. That is why we give you some advice or framework of Buddhism. And to point out—to point out some important points in your practice. Tim?

Student E: You’ve recognized with these--talked of the first principle and the second principle. What is the difference?

Suzuki: The first principle--second principle is, you know, ordinary common sense, you know. Know[?] the teaching which is for patients[?] is the second principle. But people know this is just for some particular patients[?]. So, there must be, you know, some absolute teaching which is for everyone. People, you know, are Buddhist look for some teaching which is permanent. And what is that permanent teaching that was prominent f or them? And we need general teachings that whatever it is, what is told by someone is not the first one--First Principle. Then what is the First Principle? The First Principle is something which you cannot understand, which--to which there’s no approach[?] that is the First Principle.

Student F: But doesn’t the second principle depend on the first principle?

Suzuki: Depend on, but the—the way it depend on is ??? The--even though you extend the second principle, you know, you cannot reach the first--on the first principle. If you add one and one and one, how many ones you add, it will not adding infinity. So, infinity, or the first principle is something beyond the second principle. Or you may say the viewpoint is like completely different. If you divide one into many, you know--if you add, you know, one after another, how many--how long you add one after another, it cannot be infinity. But if you divide the absolute one in many ways, in--as much as possible, that is, you know, infinity. In this way--when we understand in this way, we can say, we are a part of it, you know. But we are not. Our understanding is not based on a one, or a two. Our understanding is based on something absolute [laughs], which we don’t know. But we may be a part of it. When we understand in that way, we are a part of it. So, it is a kind of belief, you may say. But it is more than belief. It should be belief if true, or else we cannot exist here. Big hypothesis[?] [laughs]. Yes, there is no other way to--except in this way.

And we should know that we are even a part of it. More than that, you know. If we say, we are part of it, the true relationship to the ultimate one, will be dark[?], you know. If we are a part of it, you know, what--then what is the real relationship to the ultimate one? Part of it. And if we are--everyone of us is unfolding of the one infinite ultimate, or deity, you know. Then the meaning of each person will be dark[?], you know. We are just unfolding of one infinite being. So, what--each one of us lose our sense of meaning of being. So, we are not even unfolding of the absolute--the one. Or we are not even a part of it. If you think to this extent, you will, you know, find out what is the absolute one. Okay? Not part of it. Or--and we are not unfolding of the one being. So, [laughs] say something! [Laughs, laughter] who are you? [Laughter] no are[?] [laughs]. Peter[?]

Student G: Are your hand a part of you?

Suzuki: Huh?

Student G: Are your hand a part of you?

Suzuki: You ask, my hand?

Student G: Yes.

Suzuki: No [laughs]. It is, you know--you cannot say my hand is part of me. Part of me is, you know, to add hand and body. Even though you add my hand and body, this is not my hand. If my hand is extended [laughs], what they of made[?] [laughs]? And, then my hand is part of[?]—why, you know, hand is--hand has some different activity, or believed[?], you know, ability[?]. The meaning of hand is result[?], if my hand is extended body. Something more. Hand is something more than my body. It is. So hand is hand, and body is body, it is said. But it is—how do you say?—part of me. But it is not even part of me. It is--because hand has its own ability, and my body has quite different ability. So what? I don’t know? [Laughter, laughs.] Hai.

Student H: Sorry. Roshi, sometimes when I am doing something that is really difficult, for--for example, in the zendo trying to sit continuously without moving, or keep my gaze always at the floor ahead of me where it should be, I feel that I’m inhibiting myself. That I’m almost…
Suzuki: That I?

Student H: Inhibiting.

Suzuki: Hmm?

Student H: I feel almost as though I’m…

Suzuki: Inhibiting?

Student H: …inhibiting myself, like putting myself in a little black box, and killing part of myself. And also I feel that when I do this and it’s very very difficult to do it, that I’m--because it’s so difficult only doing it for some end. When I do something very difficult, I’m happy to do it for an end, for a goal. Or is that the wrong kind of activity? First, would you comment on the feeling that you’re killing something by conforming to a very narrow, physically narrow step, and also the feeling that—that whether--whether you should continue to do something that’s very difficult, to conform to this narrow step, even if you think you are doing it for a goal?

Suzuki: Mmm. Yes, uh, We are practicing it actually, you know, aiming at a goal, you know. But that goal—what is the goal? is the point. The goal is to find goal in each moment is the goal. And that is enlightenment. And how it happens to you is—there may be two ways. By all of a sudden attaining enlightenment, or by long practice. When you become more and more aware of what you are doing in its true sense, and when you become sympathetic with people’s misunderstanding of our practice, and when you found out how you help them, you will find out that you--you have come to some point where you can help others, even though you do not attain enlightenment, neat[?] just like this, you know. The first of all, you know, if--even though you listen to our lecture, I am talking about just for you to really know. I don’t want to talk about, you know, perfect [laughs] a perfect[?] [laughs] other religions, you know, because I don’t know so much about perfect.

But I—but I know in--in what way they have—they create problems, you know. For an instance, you know, I said, whatever you say or whatever you do or whatever you think, that is not absolutely—absolutely right. And true teaching is not here [knocks], you know. The first area[?], you know—the best part[?] is to organize our way of life as much fair, and for fair for each one of us. And sharing our profit, you know, in some way. That is maybe the first thing we should do. How must acts[?], you know--basic point. How we divide the money we need is maybe the--the most important point. And next maybe will be to find various positions for various person according to his ability. That will be the next thing which they should do. But even—but if it’s not possible to divide, you know, profit even, some people may try to divide, you know, all the income, you know, even. And some people are trying to reserve their advantage, you know, as much as possible with some reason. And in that way, they--they think it is possible to organize our life for profit in positive way. But that is not possible from the beginning. To some extent it is possible, but if it is a matter of one’s own character, or one’s own religious understanding or culture--develop of culture--it is not possible to measure[?] it, you know. And to treat people in most absolutely fair is not possible.

But some people think it is possible [laughs]. That is why we—we must fight with each other. And we have to have various opinions. And people—and they fight, at the risk of their dignity[?]. [Laughs] this is terrible. To lose the fight is to lose the dignity[?] of life, each one’s character. So, they have to fight it out. But there is no reason why we should fight, when it is not possible to establish some absolutely right way of organization. In this way we are fighting. But from our viewpoint, it is absolutely wrong, you know, understanding of fair, or truth. Truth is not here, you know. The truth is something which we cannot, you know, bring it perfectly into our everyday life. Truth is something which—to which we have to strive for. So, without striving for it’s narrow[?] —to believe in some truth which is not truth, or fake truth, and to force some principle to others. Big, big mistake. From the beginning, it is too much to expect. For us, it is too much to expect for government. We cannot expect so much for the government.

And, they should know—there are limits, you know. And they should be—should be more humble, and they could think more. Then we will have a very good, you know, life with this. This is only way to bring about perfect peace. Not perfect but comparatively peaceful life, I think. You see[?] all those confusions, caused by, you know, misunderstanding of the truth. What we--I am talking about is something, you know, unworthy, or maybe you think because you compare religion to politics. Or some science, scientific study, so it is difficult to understand, but religion is something different in way of understanding of our life. So, you should keep studying, you know, something in some different way.

Student I: I am trying to read Lankavatara Sutra and ???. And when I’m reading it, I think I am ??? as soon as I close book, I forget everything. I—I can’t remember a thing that I’ve read. And when I was in school, I think I did the same thing with the textbooks. [Suzuki laughs.] I really had—I had to memorize. I really put a lot of hope[?] in memorizing. If I didn’t really know ‘em, I could’ve memorized, you know, I don’t—I don’t know what is…

Suzuki: I think that is enough, I think. But maybe better to--I want you, if possible, you know, to not compare, but to—to organize teaching, and what you study, you know, from book, you know, you will find out relationship. Purpose of my lecture is mostly to give you some way to understand the various scriptures and various thought, in appropriate way, without being attached to it. Without wasting time.

Student: Shouldn’t I remember something? [Both laugh.]

Suzuki: There is no need to. If you forget, you know, it’s all right. Because if you doubt--if you have doubt something honest[?], you will not forget it, you know. Because you understand it, you forget. Because you have no problem in understanding [laughs], so you forget. If it is difficult to understand, you will think—you have to think more about it, so you cannot forget what is it. Again my idea[?] [laughter, laughs].

So, in other words, to have doubted, you know, to have doubted, means you understood something from the book. And if you have no doubt about it, I don’t know whether it is good or bad [laughs]. It’s one of the truths, you know, whether you [laughs, laughter] understand it completely, or you didn’t because you didn’t understand [laughs, laughter]. So, for us, you know, in--especially in studying tedious[?], I think it’s better to read some difficult book [laughs] than to really become sleepy [laughs, laughter]. And, you know, if you become sleepy, you, seriously, read with your mouth [laughter], and over and over again, then it will help you. It may be better to read many books [laughs, laughter]. Read something very difficult to understand, and over, and over. Hai.

Student J: I can say now that I am 21 years old, and that my body is young, and it’s not giving me too much trouble. But when I get to be 65, it may be giving me a lot of trouble. And science would say that the reason this is happening is because my body is getting older. And what I would like to know, is for a person who has gone beyond time, how would this person interpret the change that’s occurred to his body?

Suzuki: [Laughs] beyond time! [laughs, laughter]. We--beyond time does not mean [laughter, laughs] to be—some quite different experience. Disheartening[?], you know. The age you are—tell us are being or[?] [laughter] or to reach or to make—spend twenty four to ??? [laughter].

Student J: Maybe--maybe without time would be better than saying beyond time.

Suzuki: Beyond time is, you know, means to live in each moment, you know, beyond time. It is through enjoy or to appreciate your life, day by day, is how to live beyond the idea of time. Actually, there is no time, you know. Time is something which is happening. Day after day is time. There is no measurement of time. Miss[?] as clock is; usually that is--that is not true.

Student J: Well then how--how do you interpret change? Or is there change, at all?

Suzuki: Didn’t I explain about time? I thought I did. Time is something continuously change. And time is something--idea of time is some continuous—idea of continuity. And at the same time, idea of discontinuity.

You know, when I say the passing time at nine, it is—time is idea of discontinuity. It is going [laughs] —but we say it is starting several minutes after nine. We cannot say so, but if we cannot say so, there is no reason why we have [laughs] a clock. Because of the--when we use clock, we used—we have the time--idea of time, and the idea of discontinuity of time. But actually, it is going, so time is idea of continuity. So, time is something--idea of time, is idea of continuity and discontinuity. So, you understand one reality in two ways: continuity and discontinuity, which is, you know, two pair of opposite idea and contradict with each other. So, in contradiction, you know, there is reality. So, to enjoy our life you need to have your past and future as your own. But each time you have your past and future , maybe what in this moment will be the same, but we are independent.

[end of tape]