This podcast is offered by the San Francisco Zen Center on the web at www.sfzc.org. Our public programs are made possible by donations from people like you. Good afternoon. Was everybody here yesterday? Well, here's a little review of... maybe little review, of yesterday's discussion of the two truths, which this essay of Dogen is largely based on. Two truths, the conventional or relative truth and the ultimate truth. So we spoke about how due to various conditions, there appears a retreat hall.

[01:02]

It depends on various conditions like walls, floors, ceiling, lights, and the function of having retreats here, and all that stuff put together. It depends largely on our concept of retreat hall, our kind of projection, our imputation. are naming it a retreat hall. So dependent on our mind's projection, there is an appearance arising of a retreat hall, and that's called conventional truth. Conventional truth is this dependently arising appearance. And because the retreat hall depends on these various conditions. It is what we call empty of independent existence.

[02:10]

I think that's maybe the simplest way to talk about this relationship. And the emptiness of independent existence is the ultimate truth. Does that make sense? So the very reason of this being a conventionally existent, dependently arising appearance of a retreat, because it dependently arises, is the reason it's empty of independent existence. So it's like they can't be separated. Because of the conventional truth, of the retreat hall, there is the ultimate truth of the retreat hall, that it's empty, or we could say that it's not a retreat hall, so like the language of the Heart Sutra. Because the retreat hall depends on various conditions, like our idea of it, it is not actually a retreat hall.

[03:24]

And you might say that's just playing with words, but actually if you examine, this is really a profound principle of how reality has these two sides. We could even say there are two realities, a conventional reality and an ultimate reality. And mostly we're used to the conventional one, the appearance of the retreat hall. It's hard for us to experience the no retreat hall, but it's right there. with the dependently arisen appearance of the hall. So this is the same logic as the heart teacher. Form itself is emptiness. Emptiness itself is form. So in this example it's like the particular emptiness of the independently existing retreat hall. It's not just an abstract, random emptiness.

[04:28]

It's this particular emptiness of the independent retreat hall. It's not like the retreat hall, it's not like this is the emptiness of bananas or something like that. It's this particular emptiness of the retreat hall, of an independently existing retreat hall. Therefore, emptiness itself is always connected with a particular form Emptiness itself is formed. They're completely inseparable. And this Dogen essay is about birth and death, which is the Chinese way of translating samsara. So we talked about these two terms, samsara and nirvana, which are also maybe another way of talking about the two truths. Samsara is the conventional truth of the appearance of... birth, death, life, all our problems and difficulties, and all the stuff of our life.

[05:33]

Generally connected with, going along with all the stuff of our life, is that it doesn't quite work out perfectly. It's somewhat dissatisfying. That's the kind of nature of samsara. It's just a dependently arisen appearance of birth, health, sickness and death. But in that appearing world, it's always a little bit off. But the very nature, the true nature of this apparent world of samsara is nirvana. Nirvana is like that which doesn't come and go, rise or stand. appear or disappear, the ultimate truth, like the nirvanic aspect of birth and death is that nothing is actually happening.

[06:38]

There is no birth and death. So Nagarjuna, the great master of this type of middle way logic, said that samsara is exactly nirvana. Nirvana is exactly samsara. The dependently arisen appearance of birth and death is itself the nirvanic emptiness of any actual real birth and death. Yeah, these all kind of go together. So when we say samsara is itself nirvana, you can see there's this logic, very, in a way, very rational logic, if we understand the meaning of the terms like this.

[07:39]

So it's not throwing out some random radical statement. It is a radical statement, but it's not just baseless randomness. The true nature of samsara is actually nirvana. So one time my teacher, Tenshin Roshi, put this in a very wonderful way. One of my favorite things that he said many years ago in passing, he probably forgot about it right afterwards, but it stuck with me. Defining these two terms, samsara and nirvana, he said, Well, what is samsara? What is nirvana? Let's define nirvana. Nirvana is simply not meddling with samsara. Well, then what's samsara?

[08:42]

Samsara is simply meddling with nirvana. That's such a great... and it's kind of like you see how they're dependently arisen. There's no starting definition. Each one is built on the other one. I think that's a beautiful kind of koan you can contemplate for many lifetimes. Nirvana is simply not meddling with samsara or birth and death. Meddling is, we could say, grasping it, rejecting it, basically believing that that it's more than just a dependently arisen appearance. Grasping it as independently, grasping samsara as independently existing, that's the ultimate meddling with samsara. We have this birth and death, these coming and going appearances of birth and death. If we just let them be, let them arise and cease as they will, that's not meddling with them.

[09:49]

But if we try to speed up birth, prevent death, get a hold of some stable, independent thing, then that's meddling with samsara. So not meddling with samsara is nirvana. Very simple. And it's maybe a little bit more of a stretch to go the other way and say, well, what's nirvana? I mean, what's samsara is actually meddling with nirvana. The nice thing about saying it that way is that it's almost like nirvana is the actual reality of things to begin with. Before we meddle with anything, this is just nirvana. But then when we meddle with nirvana, it means try to make it into something, get a hold of it in some way, do something about it, then we make it into samsara. Can you follow that? Samsara, nirvana, is simply not meddling with samsara.

[10:59]

Samsara is simply meddling with nirvana. See if you can remember that forever. I remembered it for a little while and thought it was just really awesome. encapsulation of the entire path of Buddha, Dharma, at least the emptiness teachings and the teachings of samsara and nirvana. But, you know, it's easy to forget. One time I was at a monastic conference where the monastics got together and rejoiced in their path and felt like This is the way. This is totally the way. And, you know, ordinary life in the world is kind of, you know, second class or something.

[12:02]

Not quite the way. It won't really work. And this one Chinese monk, I remember him saying, who's your teacher? And I was telling him about my teacher. And, you know, and in our Japanese tradition, you know, we have... you know, can have family life and so on. It's not totally monastic. And he got very critical and said, well, how are you going to actually end samsara in this, you know, mundane family life in the world? And it really caught me. I forgot this earlier teaching, right? I was like, oh, well, just practice really hard. He's like, samsara, you know, This is just delving into samsara. And the goal, the Buddhist goal, is to end samsara, to realize nirvana. How are you going to end samsara like that? And I was, uh, uh, uh, I'll see you later.

[13:03]

So then I was kind of shaken up by this and disturbed and thought, oh, maybe I have the wrong teacher. So I went to my teacher in Dokusan as soon as I got back and brought up this story. And I said, so teacher, this is our path, right? I was quite disturbed. Like, how are we going to end samsara like this? How are you going to end samsara like this? I was kind of worked up and he was very relaxed. A big smile came to his face. How are you going to end birth and death? And he said, there is no birth and death. And something dropped away. I had built up. I had basically done a big meddling with my idea of birth and death. Maybe this Chinese monk was offering this as a test to see if I'd get caught in meddling with birth and death.

[14:13]

How are you going to end it? question. How are you going to end it? Which means it's something that you have to end, right? And there is no birth and death. It means like it's not some actual thing that you don't end the birth and death to realize nirvana. It's exactly what Nagarjuna is saying because birth and death is exactly nirvana. It's the true nature of samsara is nirvana. So nothing is ended and nothing Nothing's annihilated, nothing's attained. Yesterday we talked about Nagarjuna's verse 3 in chapter 25 where he says, nothing annihilated, nothing attained, and so on. This is what we call nirvana. You don't eliminate samsara to attain nirvana. And yet, it's very easy to start thinking that way. Even if we've heard, it's not the case. especially very confident monk will come and say, you have to end samsara, right?

[15:19]

Yes, yes. And at the same time, I think it's... It was partly the spirit with which my teacher, in a very relaxed way, he didn't get defensive and say, ha, what is he talking about ending samsara? There's no birth and death. Go back and tell him that. It's like... It's okay. You don't have to worry about this. But you do have to clearly see and understand that there is no birth and death. It's easy to say that, right? It's easy to hear that. It's even easy to logically come to this conclusion if we work a little bit with these teachings. to really realize it completely is some work. How does it work different from meddling work?

[16:28]

How does it work different from meddling work? It's a kind of a non-do, it's a clear seeing, which is not really a doing. So one of my favorite stories about this type of Not on a work kind of work is the classic Indian metaphor of the snake and the rope. You maybe heard this. You're walking along a path, a trail of Tassajara, and you suddenly see a rattlesnake on the trail, and you jump back in fright. Your heart's beating. It's not moving. You look a little closer, look a little closer, oh, it's actually not a snake, it's a rope. And you see, as soon as you see it's a rope, your, your maybe heartbeat's still going fast, but your fears like immediately dissipate and you think, oh, how funny, I was really shocked by the snake, but it's actually not a snake, it's a rope.

[17:38]

I think the nice thing about this simple metaphor is, The snake's like conventional truth. There's an appearance of a snake, but when you look closer, just looking, without some kind of hard work looking, you're just carefully looking. You just see that it actually, it's not a snake, and it never was a snake. It's empty of snakeness. And the nice thing about this metaphor is You don't remove the snake in order to see the rope. You just look clearly and you see that it's actually not a snake. So you don't eliminate the snake to attain the rope. It's actually already a rope. It's just looking clearly, we see. So the work, you could say,

[18:39]

Maybe work isn't the right word. It's more like diligently looking. But it might be in a very relaxed way. I think if we get too, we don't want to look in a kind of stressful way. Like, I gotta see the, you know, we're looking at the snake. Gotta see the rope. It's in there somewhere. Already this is not already preventing it. It's more like relaxed looking. Like those magic eye pictures, you know. There was a kind of fad about 10 years ago, you know, those things. It's like a hidden picture, a hidden 3D image in this picture. And it looks like a picture of one thing, but if you look at it for a while with your eyes kind of blurred, this three-dimensional image kind of appears out of it. And some people can get that right away for some reason. I'm the type that... It took me a long, long time to see that. And I think it was maybe because I was working too hard at it.

[19:40]

Where's the image? They say there's one in there. I'm really trying to see. But the instructions, I have to say, actually just relax. Relax your vision. Relax your whole being. And just let your eyes don't focus too strongly. And it's kind of right there behind. And sometimes it starts to come forth. And it's pretty neat because when you see it, you see that it always was there. But then if you try to like focus more strongly on it, it disappears again. It's a nice practice thing, these magic eye books. Practice training in relaxed but diligent looking. I came across this passage. This book is called Appearance and Reality. Appearance is another name for conventional truth and reality is ultimate truth. It's kind of funny that the world of appearance is this retreat hall.

[20:42]

The world of reality is no retreat hall. It's kind of weird that the real reality of this retreat hall is that it isn't here. But it does appear. These are the two truths. I just thought this is a little sort of like sort of in this working with these two truths. It is a book on the two truths. Some middle-way practitioners working with this kind of thing admit that in practice the refutation of inherent existence, which is another word for independent existence, or essence, these are all terms for this illusory sense that we have, like there's like a bookness, in this book, like an essence of the book. It exists independently of our projections of it. So some people admit that in practice the refutation of this independent existence is a morally perilous task and that success is a rare and hard one.

[21:53]

If this independent existence seems to be like a hat that's put on and then taken off, leaving the things just as they were then the yogi is not getting at emptiness so this is the image like say you're um there's a conventionally existent person and um and the in and their inherent existence is like a little hat and you're just trying to like work with the the independent existence of the person is like this hat that you can remove and i think we often do this i i know i've I have worked with this in this way. Like you see, okay, apparently we're projecting an independently existing retreat hall here. So let's just like remove the independent existence and then we can just see the independently arising retreat hall. And we do this in a kind of clunky sort of conceptual way. Okay, I can see there's no independent, there's no real independent retreat hall here, but we still haven't really touched

[22:55]

our feeling that it really is a retreat hall, something like this. We remove, it's as if we're removing this little piece called the independent existence of the retreat hall without actually removing our kind of innate, you know, holding to it as a retreat hall. This is a little bit difficult. Do you get some sense of that? How you can kind of intellectually do this kind of exercise. You can remove your idea of the independent existence of it, but you don't actually touch. You're kind of grasping the retreat hall. If somebody suddenly, if they start knocking down the walls, you suddenly get really disturbed. I know there's no independent existence, but please don't knock down the walls. A little bit like that. That's how I understand this. If inherent existence seems to be like a hat that's put on and taken off, leaving the conventional things just as they were, then the yogi is not really getting at the emptiness of it.

[23:59]

It's a little deeper than this. Because conventional existence and inherent existence are thoroughly entangled in ordinary experience and It should at first seem as though one is cutting at the very existence of oneself and the world. When one's really meditating on emptiness in this way, it should feel to the yogi as if one's actually like cutting away the very fabric of reality. It's not enough to do this little, oh, I don't believe it. I think we can do this with our self too. We hear these teachings, there's no independent self I can see on just five skandhas that arise and cease. That's all. But it doesn't really touch our grasping mind. Yogis meditating on emptiness may feel as though the whole world is slipping away and that were they to continue, they would lose themselves altogether.

[25:05]

We might not like this kind of thing. It might be quite frightening. But this is yogis truly meditating on emptiness. It says may, they may feel that the whole world is slipping away and if they were to continue, they would lose themselves altogether. While the advanced yogi may be able to balance and dance on the narrow ridge of the middle way, the middle way that doesn't fall into things truly inherently exist or they don't exist at all. They just appear, depending on conditions. They may be able to dance on that middle way. For the beginner, there is no way to escape reifying ignorance without the courage to press to the very precipice of nihilism. I thought of this because of Abby's question yesterday. Doesn't this sound like it's getting close to nihilism? thought, hmm, that we must have the courage to press to the very precipice of nihilism, but not fall over into the abyss of nihilism.

[26:20]

I think this is really interesting. I think this is kind of coming, it's a very conceptual presentation, but this is talking about the actual experience now, when you may be feeling like you're actually going to disappear. Standing at the precipice of nihilism, a yogi should then sense that she will soon catch her balance and be able to posit conventional truth. Because the conventional and the ultimate are always together. Nihilism is when you actually abandon the conventional truth, you slip over into nothing exists at all, period. Whereas the middle way, it's called the middle way because it's It's this union of conventional and ultimate, where it doesn't slip into total non-existence, nihilistic nothingness, and it doesn't fall into the other extreme of things really do have an essence of retreat hall-ness, book-ness, self-existence.

[27:31]

The Dalai Lama has often said, that if it seems that one is going to lose either emptiness or the conventional appearance of, for example, karma and its effects, then one should give up emptiness. It's not truly like these really aren't contradictory, but if it starts to seem like you're falling into emptiness in the nihilistic sense of karmic cause and effect, it doesn't matter anymore, then you're falling into actually a distorted view of emptiness and you should give up emptiness and come back to cause and effect because the precepts and karmic cause and effect are not to be discarded by the view of emptiness. Dogen said after all his emptiness teaching is near the end of his life. He wrote the essay on deep faith in cause and effect.

[28:32]

It's not all these Tassajara t-shirts in Chinese. Deep faith in cause and effect and deep faith in emptiness. Because the correct view of emptiness will not undermine cause and effect. With familiarity, understanding of emptiness should deepen and sustain understanding of the interdependent arising of cause and effect. Otherwise, one may be slipping into nihilism. So, a nice little summary of emptiness. It doesn't mean nihilism, but I appreciate... this point of maybe standing on the precipice of nihilism to make sure we go far enough. It's not far enough to just say, well, things dependently co-arise, so they don't really inherently exist and go about our merry way. But are we really completely freed from birth and death, in the midst of birth and death?

[29:38]

Or do we have some problem? We better go on to Dogen, or on out of Genzoe. Shobo Genzo, birth and death, which again, birth and death is a Chinese translation of samsara. The appearance of birth and death. Also birth, this character in Chinese shou, also means life, interestingly. It can mean birth or life. So you could translate it as life and death. We say on the Han, right, the sounding board, it says great is the matter of life and death or birth and death. You could translate it as great is the matter of this appearance of samsara. We might say, why doesn't the Han say great is the matter of nirvana? But actually the Han says great is the matter of samsara.

[30:43]

We have to... look right into the appearance of samsara without any meddling and nirvana is revealed. One other example that just came to mind, I can't resist saying, because I think it's a very simple experiential thing that maybe some of you have worked with at least correlates with this. So say like you're sitting in zazen and you have like a really strong knee pain and your arm It's getting worse and worse, and you're starting to, should I move, should I not move? Am I going to ruin my knee? Am I going to have to have surgery after this? You know how this goes. Especially in longer retreats, you can really build all kinds of stories. This is called meddling with samsara. Samsara is just a sensation in the knee because we have a body. Meddling with it is, naturally, the mind starts to create all these... perilous stories about what will happen. And of course, that makes it much worse and worse and worse.

[31:47]

So we're instructed, right? Just be with this pain. Don't do anything about it. Sometimes we say, go right into it. Put your mind right at the pain without doing anything. So you can do this. You have this knee pain. Okay, I'm not going to try to get away from it. I'm also not going to indulge in it. I'm just going to be really aware of it. And sometimes if we're quite concentrated. You can get really into just the sensation of the painful knee, kind of curious about it and really into it. And then there's a way at some point, maybe momentarily, it actually ceases to be knee pain. And I don't mean that it goes away and it's really comfortable. There's something happening there, but it's no longer we can maybe the first step is we no longer call it a problem to get rid of. We just get like, there's a really intense thing happening in this region down here. But I no longer, I'm trying to avoid it.

[32:50]

It's just like an intense something. And then it even becomes like, even what we call pain starts to, because that's a conceptual imputation too. It's not even pain anymore. Again, it's not nothing. That would be nihilism. Something intense is happening. but we can't even label it pain as opposed to pleasure, we maybe have had that experience. You have to be quite concentrated and quite in a non-meddling mode to relate to pain that way. And I'm not saying that that's the nirvana, really, of the pain, or that that's nirvana, but I think that principle is something like that. In a way, it's not pain, or it's not this big problem, but it's right there in the midst of it. It's not like trying to think about Hawaii, okay, and I'll forget about it. It's right in the conventional truth of this intense knee pain. The ultimate truth is starting to reveal itself, but it's actually not knee pain, and it's not nothing.

[33:52]

It's a simple kind of example. I think you can find these things all the time. Dogen says... Because a Buddha is in birth and death, there is no birth and death. Because a Buddha is in samsara, there is no samsara. So after this long discussion, this may be like, without this long discussion, you might just think that's kind of just a weird Dogen-like sentence, but now maybe it's like pretty straightforward. And by Buddha here, we mean like... someone awakened to ultimate truth, let's say. Because there's an awakening to the truth of emptiness in birth and death, there is no birth and death. It is also said, because a Buddha is not in birth and death, a Buddha is not deluded by birth and death.

[34:56]

So two different statements. Really think about the two truths here still and about samsara and nirvana. Because there's a nirvanic being in samsara, there is no samsara. It's also said because a nirvanic being is not in samsara means they're actually not caught up in samsara. A nirvanic awakened being is not diluted by samsara because they're actually not in it. they can go into it and not be deluded by it. See how that makes some sense? Because a Buddha is not truly in samsara, even though they appear to be in samsara. A Buddha is not deluded by samsara or doesn't meddle with samsara by making it, reifying it, by making it into something that you have to end to be a Buddha.

[36:00]

Any questions about these first two sentences of Dogen? Do you think there is a different reason than a formal intention by Dogen of using these two statements and not using just one? Yeah, in a way they're a little bit different. They are different pointers towards the same, where it's all about the non-duality of samsara and nirvana, like two sides of one coin. So one way of saying it is because, in a way, the first sentence I feel is like a little bit more non-dual. Because the Buddha is right in samsara. There is no samsara. The second one is a little bit like, the Buddha is a little bit removed from it, right? Now because a Buddha is not really in samsara, therefore a Buddha is not deluded by samsara.

[37:05]

They just point at a little different angle on the relationship between Buddha and samsara. So he brings up both, and he kind of says that they're both, he doesn't rank one above the other, but we'll see in a minute how there's another Zen teacher who kind of thought certain statements are better than others. Yes? Well, without suggesting one really is better than the other, to me the second one kind of brings in this sense of compassion somehow, of the Buddha doing this practice in order to save all beings, to lead them out of samsara, but as the first statement suggests, to where they already actually are. Yeah, in a way you could hear the first one as being more compassionate because the Buddha's right in samsara. And therefore he demonstrates that there is really no samsara while being right in the midst. And the second one is he removes himself a little bit to not be deluded.

[38:09]

So there again, I think that's a nice example how you could see either one could be seen as more compassionate. It's kind of a nice interplay, a nice meditation on two different ways of looking at. But that is an important point too, that the way a Buddha relates to samsara is coming from this compassionate intention to free everyone from samsara. The one great matter for Buddhas appearing in the world, the Lotus Sutra says, is to liberate all beings. So now we have this kind of weird thing, is going to go on here with this asterisk at the end here, refers down to the bottom of the page where it says, the full dialogue in which these two quotations appear is found in somewhat different wording in these lamp records that where Dobin pulls all these stories from.

[39:11]

The funny thing is that he misquotes it. He reverses the two sentences. So here's the story, if you don't have this paper here. Jiashan and Dingshan, two Chinese then ancestors, were walking and talking, talking and walking. Dingshan said, no Buddha within birth and death is in itself no birth and death. Jiashan said, Buddha within birth and death means no illusion about birth and death. So first of all, if you look carefully here, they're the opposite of what Dogen says. So Dingshan says no Buddha within birth and death is in itself no birth and death. Dogen says because a Buddha is in birth and death, there is no birth and death. So Dingshan says no Buddha is in birth and death.

[40:13]

Dogen says a Buddha is in birth and death. And then with the second one, Jashan said, Buddha within birth and death means no illusion about birth and death. And Dogen reversed that and said, because a Buddha is not in birth and death, a Buddha is not deluded or has no illusions about birth and death. If you're not seeing it, it might be hard to follow that. But he reverses the negative and the positive. For some reason, when I keep looking at this, I'm like, Was it actually a mistake? Or is there another, you know, in all these different lamp records, is there another version where these two are reversed? Or is Dogen intentionally doing that? And I think we'll never know. But I did have the thought that maybe Dogen intentionally misquoted the original Chinese story in order to make a nicer point.

[41:19]

Because I actually appreciate what Dogen says more than the original story. Because Dogen, with his first one, because a Buddha is right in birth and death, there's no birth and death. It's a very concise statement about form itself is emptiness. When there's awakening right in the midst of birth and death, that is the vision of no birth and death. Very nicely put, I think. Whereas the original story says... No Buddha within birth and death is in itself no birth and death. I think that's a little harder to understand the point. If anybody has any particular take on that, you're welcome to offer it. I read this sentence myself like a hundred times. What is this actually getting at? Just another question. Is it a quote? Yeah. It's in the same order as on the bottom here.

[42:28]

Well, this is a footnote from the Waddell and Abe translation of his fascicle, but also Andy Ferguson's Book of the Chinese Ancestors also has the same story, very nicely. It's a slightly different translation, but same point. So which makes me conclude that the original Chinese story is not a misprint because two different people translated the same way. And all the Dogen translators translate him the same way. So there's something funny going on with Dogen, it looks like. Anyway, I think we could hear the original story. No Buddha within birth and death is in itself no birth and death. One interpretation of that would be like... Birth and death is no birth and death. You don't need any Buddha to come in and make it that way. Birth and death is in itself already no birth and death.

[43:32]

So no Buddha within birth and death, no Buddha added into birth and death, is in itself already no birth and death. You follow that? I think that's maybe the one way to hear it. the original story. And then Jashan says, Buddha within birth and death means no illusion about birth and death, which means that, you know, an awakened being within samsara has no illusions about samsara, even though they're in it. And that's the bodhisattva path, right, is to knowingly and willingly vow to keep coming back into samsara to save all beings. I think sometimes we misinterpret, we say, bodhisattva path is to come back and just like, totally suffer and be totally confused again and again. But I think truly the Mahayana story is at some point the Bodhisattva, due to their vow, they want to come back into this kind of difficult realm but with more and more wisdom so they really can see the emptiness of it and help free everybody by helping everybody see the emptiness of it right in the midst of it.

[44:40]

That's really, I think, my understanding of the Bodhisattva vow. They really need this wisdom of realizing emptiness as well as the compassion to stay in this kind of messy appearance we call birth and death. It's the, as that book said, the razor's edge, this fine dancing on the razor's edge of the middle way. Whoops, the Bodhisattva starts to forget that they vowed come back into illusion and they actually start believing it and now they're totally swamped. Oh, come back. I'm like, well, I think I'd rather just check out if it's all illusion and it's just so, so painful. Can we just check out and just be a Buddha now? Nope, nope. We vow, vow to stay here. On the razor's edge. Sharp. Tiptoeing on this razor. But. It's not really a razor. It's just the penly arisen appearance of a razor.

[45:44]

So anyway, this Chinese story continues. So Ding Shan and Jia Shan both give these statements about Buddhas and birth and death. And then they went up the mountain to see Master Da Mei. Jashan asked him, we are unable to decide which of our views is closer to the truth. See, the Zen people are like working with, like trying to come up with really accurate statements about reality. And we're really, we're really actually, I think this is really important. So we walked all the way up the mountain to ask you, Dame, which of his statements is more accurate? Dame said, one is close and one is far. Ooh. Which is close? Asked Yashan. Dame said, you should leave and come back tomorrow. Maybe it's because, hmm, I'll have to think about which.

[46:50]

Or like, to see if you really still care. Now the stakes are high because you might be wrong. See if you just escape at night, right? So the next day, Yashan said, no, I'm coming back. And put the same question. And Dame said... The one who is close does not ask. The one who asks is not close. In other words, you, Jashan, asking the question are further from the truth. So it's kind of saying that the Jashan statement that's further away, Buddha within birth and death means no illusion about birth and death. That's a little farther from the truth of no Buddha within birth and death is in itself no birth and death. And if we had to, you know, rank these statements, maybe the first one is a little bit more non-dual. Non-dual, it's talking about the non-dual union of the two truths. It's a little bit less like you have to remove oneself a little bit from his birth and death.

[47:54]

But that's all we have of the story. Jashan and then... After he had become an abbot of a temple himself, Jia Shan said, at that time of that previous conversation, because they were still talking about it, at that time I lacked the Dharma eye. So he admitted that his statement wasn't that clear, as it could have been. And while we're on the story of these ancestors, Jia Shan and Ding Shan. I just thought it's a nice opportunity to hear a little bit more about Jia Shan and how he's working with the conventional and ultimate truth. And this is, I think, an interesting, a little bit long story from our tradition. And it's kind of nice because it's about teachers and students helping each other.

[48:59]

A lot of the Zen stories about heard about this, but this is a kind of, you can imagine the scene maybe. So Jashant, this is like, so Jashant had that dialogue where Da-mei said, you're a little bit, a little bit off. Later he became a teacher in some temple and he was giving a Dharma talk and Da-woo, who is another one of these ancestors in our tradition, happened to like stop by the temple and go to his Dharma talk. And somebody in the assembly asked Jashan, what is the Dharmakaya? You know, the Dharmakaya is like the truth, the reality body of Buddha. And Jashan said, the Dharmakaya is formless. Pretty good. I mean, it's true.

[50:00]

Technically speaking. And then the monk said, what is the Dharma eye? And Jashan said, the Dharma eye is without defect. Not too bad. I mean, he wouldn't say the Dharma eye has lots of defects. I mean, sounds like a little Zen conversation to me. But when he heard this Dao Wu, this other teacher in the audience, laughed out loud in spite of himself. picture Jashan saying, the monk saying, what's the Dharma eye? Jashan said, the Dharma eye is without defect. And in the back of the room, Dawu was going. And Jashan got down from the lecture seat and said to Dawu, something I said in my answer to that monk was not correct if it caused you to laugh out loud. Please don't withhold your compassionate instruction about this. Isn't that great? He got off the teaching seat, went back to the person in the back of the room and was laughing and said, did I say something wrong?

[51:08]

And if so, I don't want to debate you. Actually, please teach me. Such a great attitude, right? So humble. And Dawu said, you've gone out into the world to teach, but have you not had a teacher? And Josh said, Actually, I haven't. I actually just felt like I clarified the matter and just, I'll go teach now. This kind of thing happens in this world, yeah? So in Zen, the lineage of teachers and students and checking and approving of a teacher has always been part of Zen. So I actually haven't had a teacher, so may I ask you to clarify these matters? Dao said, actually, I can't speak of it. But I invite you to go see the boat monk at Huateng.

[52:12]

Have you heard of the boat monk? He's a Zen ancestor, a clear-eyed Zen ancestor who, after realizing the way, just hung out on a boat. on the river, just went fishing all day. So he got this nickname, the Boat Monk, because he didn't live in a temple. He lived in a boat. So he's like, I'm not going to actually teach you. Even though I got you this far to start asking, I feel like you maybe have some karmic affinity with this boat monk. Go see him. They did a lot of this kind of play, right? Jiao Shan said, well, who's the boat monk? Daoori said, well, above him there's not a single roof tile. Below him there's no ground to plant a hoe. If you want to see him, you must change into your traveling clothes.

[53:14]

He has no temple roof and he has no ground beneath him because he's on a boat. And also, dharmically speaking, there's nothing above him or below him. He's free. So after the meeting was over, Jia Shan packed his bag and set out for watching. And he said, we're going to cancel the Dharma talks for the next month. I'm going to see the boat monk. You people go meditate. Come with me if you want. And when the boat monk saw Jia Shan coming, he said, Reverend, in what temple do you reside? And Jashen said, I don't abide in the temple. Where I abide is not like... And he said, it's not like... It's not like what? And Jashen said, it's not like the Dharma that meets the eye. In other words, he's doing this more of a Zen talk, which is, you know, this retreat hall is like the Dharma that meets the eye.

[54:23]

And the temple that people see is the temple that meets the eye, but that's just a conventional appearance. The temple I live is not like the temples that meet the eye, right? I live in the ultimate. The boat monk said, where did you learn this teaching? And Joshua said, not in a place where the eyes or ears can perceive. So... He's really coming from the ultimate place, right? The boat monk said, a single phrase and you fall into the, get stuck in the ultimate. Then you're like a donkey tethered to a post for countless eons. So basically it sounds like Jashan is, you know, didn't really have a teacher, but he heard about the ultimate truth. And he's just like, always teaching from the ultimate. And then, but now, this boat monk saying, you know, you can say these kind of phrases, but you're just getting stuck in the ultimate.

[55:29]

Now you're like a donkey tethered to the post of ultimate truth for countless eons. Yeah, I think so. He's got this idea of the ultimate, and then now he's tied to this donkey tethering post. It's a Zen phrase that gets used actually many times. Like, somebody says something and they say, that's just a doggy tethering post. They have these weird expressions, right? That became popular. The bowman continued, you've let down a thousand foot line into the water. You're fishing very deep, but your hook is still shy by just three inches. Why don't you say something? In other words, This is pretty good. You're kind of stuck in the ultimate, but it's pretty good what you're saying. You've let down your understanding a thousand feet into the depths of the water, but your hook is just three inches from catching actual emptiness.

[56:35]

So if you want some help, why don't you just say a little bit more? As they do, as they sometimes poke in these stories. Why don't you say something? As Jahshan was just about to speak, the boat monk knocked him into the water with the oar. When Jahshan clambered back into the boat, the boat monk yelled at him, Speak! Speak! Jahshan tried to speak again, but before he could do so, the boat monk struck him again with the oar. Suddenly, as you might expect, Jahshan had a great awakening. He then nodded his head three times. I have nothing more to say now. And often these stories are like this, right? It's like somebody's really got a quite clear understanding of emptiness and ultimate truth. And the teacher will say, just say it even more accurately.

[57:41]

They're just about to say it even more clearly. And it's like... they cover their mouth or they knock them off. So it's like, at the very end, this last three inches is like, please don't try to say it. And also you need some shock tactics. Well, because you're standing on the precipice, but you have to actually jump and crunch by yourself. Yes. Yes. Yeah, yeah, very nice. Like, um, we have the Zen story, like, um, the, the greatly practiced person has climbed to the top of a hundred-foot pole, and now you have to step forward off the top. And one way to hear that is you climb to the top of the thousand-foot pole by clarifying these teachings about the two truths more and more clearly and accurately, conceptually,

[58:41]

climbing the conceptual ladder, and then at the top, you have to leap beyond all conceptions. But if you only climb up a few steps, like, yeah, that's like putting the hat, removing the hat. Yeah, there's no inherently existent retreat hall here. There's just a retreat hall. That's like only taking three steps up and stepping off, and then you just clump. It's not so, you didn't even notice that you leaped. The ground is not so far, but if you get really high up and then you leap, you get to fly through the air for a while and enjoy the free fall. So he nodded his head three times. And now the boat monk said, now you're the one with the fishing pole and line. Just act by your own nature and don't defile the clear waves. And Jia Shan, even though he's greatly enlightened, he further asks, well, how do you actually throw off the line and cast down the pole?

[59:49]

He's saying, you know, now I have the fishing line to, you know, maybe catch the next student or something. Well, how do you throw all this away? You gave me this pole and line, but let's like throw that away too. How do you do that? And the bow monk said, the fishing line hangs in the green water, drifting without intention. That's great practice instructions. More like, now there's this non-doing. You're not trying to catch anything, but you can let that line hang in the water if you want. No intention. Just drifting. Jashan said, there's no path whereby words may gain entry to the essence. Basically what he learned. It's a little much that he said that, don't you think? The tongue speaks but cannot speak it. And then the boat monk said, when the hook disappears into the river waves, then the golden fish is encountered. Jashan covered his ears.

[60:52]

Can we stop talking? The boat monk said, that's it, that's it. And you covered your ears? He then enjoined Jashan saying, hereafter, conceal yourself in a place without any trace. If the place has any sign, don't stay there. I stayed with Yaoshan for 30 years. Yaoshan, by the way, is Yakusan Igen Dayosho, one of our Soto ancestors. So this boat monk is like a kind of cousin to our particular lineage. He's a student of Yaoshan. I stayed with Yaoshan for 30 years and what I learned there I've passed to you today. Now that you have it, stay away from crowded cities. Instead, plant your hoe deep in the mountains. find one person or one half a person who won't let it die. Jia Shan then bid the boat monk goodbye. As he walked away, he looked back at the boat monk and the boat monk yelled, Reverend! Jia Shan stopped and looked around.

[61:54]

The boat monk held up the oar and said, do you say there's anything else? He then tipped over the boat, disappeared into the water and was never seen again. That's the story. of the boat monk. He did his work. He passed on the Dharma. He disappeared into the waves, never to be seen again. Later, Jia Shan was teaching at Mount Jia. Jia Shan. And, uh... He said, the way... is without even a single Dharma. There is no Buddha that you can become. There is no way that can be attained. Sounds like Nagarjuna. Nor is there any Dharma that can be grasped or let go of. There is no Dharma to even let go of.

[62:58]

Therefore the ancients said, before the eyes there is no Dharma, but the meaning is before the eyes. Two truths again, right? Before the eyes there is no Dharma, but the meaning is before the eyes, the appearance of meaning. Those who want to study the Buddhas and ancestors haven't opened their eyes. Why do they want to submit to something else and not attain their own freedom? Basically it's because they're confused about birth and death. They realize they don't have a bit of freedom, so they go thousands of miles to seek out some teacher. When persons of high ability hear these words, they're clear about what's being said. Those of middle or low ability continue rushing around. Why don't you just directly face birth and death? In other words, why not just not meddle with birth and death and not attain any nirvana?

[64:03]

Simply not meddling with birth and death. is itself already nirvana. Yeah, but then his teacher said, you can just let the line drift around. It's like maybe he already had it. He said, here's the pole and line, metaphorically speaking. Well, how can I get rid of it now? And he said, well, just let it hang there and drift. You already have it. You don't try to do anything, I think. But maybe some stupid fish just comes and bites the hook anyway. Dogen said, you know, Zen is like fishing with a straight hook. An awakened fish is like one who bites a straight hook.

[65:13]

So, meanwhile, Dogen goes on, after he quotes these two statements, Jia Shan and Ding Shan, and then says, These statements are the essence of the words of the two Zen masters, Jia Shan and Ding Shan. You should certainly not neglect them, because they are the words of those who attain the way. Instead of saying one's far and one's near, he just said, both have attained the way, realized the way. Those who want to be free from birth and death should understand the meaning of these words. If you search for a Buddha outside birth and death, it would be like trying to go to the southern country of Yue with your cart heading towards the north, or like trying to see the Big Dipper which is by the North Star while facing south, you will cause yourself to remain all the more in birth and death and lose the way of emancipation. Isn't that a nice statement, I think?

[66:19]

If you search for a Buddha outside of samsara, it will be like trying to go south with your cart facing north, or like trying to see the North Star while facing south. It's like you're going in the opposite direction. You have to go right, stay right in birth and death because the nature of birth and death is samsara. And if you try to get out of it, that's meddling with it. Just understand that birth and death, samsara, is itself nirvana. So, straight out of Nagarjuna. Maybe that's the, you know, summary of this essay. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided. There's nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death. So this is maybe sounding like kind of familiar, maybe straightforward after hearing all this speak of Nagarjuna and so on.

[67:28]

So Dogen spoke of birth and death. many times. It was a big theme for him. In the modern age, you know, we have the digital age. You can, as I did, take a digital version of the entire Shogo Genzo of 95 fascicles and just search for the term birth and death, and hundreds of times it comes up. And there's some fascicles where it's a major theme. Like I mentioned, Zenki, the whole works, is really all about birth and death, but I kind of collected the other main places which are similar. So this is Bendowa, On the Endeavor of the Way, the self-fulfilling samadhi chapter, the very first essay Dogen wrote in 1231, a little section of a longer essay. Dogen says, You should understand that birth and death is itself nirvana. They already said this.

[68:29]

apparently, in the very first thing he wrote. Nirvana is not realized outside birth and death. Even if you think that mind is permanent apart from body. So this is part of a longer discussion that Dogen was having a little debate with an imaginary character in this essay who was saying, well, there's this mind that doesn't cease as the body ceases. And Dogen's saying, mind and the body are both impermanent. Dogen says, even if you think that mind is permanent and apart from the body and mistakenly assume that Buddha wisdom is separate from birth and death, making that same analogy, like there's a Buddha mind, a conditioned Buddha mind apart from body that is permanent. If you mistakenly assume that Buddha wisdom is separate from birth and death, the mind of this assumption still arises and perishes momentarily and is not permanent.

[69:36]

So this is a little debate. He's like, well, the one who thinks that, if you're talking about this Buddha mind, the mind that thinks that actually still arises and perishes, doesn't it? Like that thought's already gone. Is this not truly ephemeral? reflect that the teaching of the oneness of body and mind is always being expounded in Buddhadharma. How then can mind alone leave the body and not cease when the body ceases? If body and mind are inseparable sometimes and not inseparable at other times, the Buddha's teaching will be false. To think that birth and death must be rejected is the mistake of ignoring Buddhadharma. You must refrain from this. So it's very similar here, saying that Buddha and Nirvana is not outside birth and death, but he's also bringing in this other issue of some permanent mind that's free from birth and death as the body ceases.

[70:44]

And he says, you know, any idea you have of the mind that's coming and going is also... part of birth and death, but the mind and body that are arising and ceasing and appearing in birth and death are themselves nirvana. It's not some other place. Dogenatha said, and it's just one brief saying in his essay, Shobogenzo komyo, radiant light. Shobogenzo, radiant light. Gogan says, the coming and going of birth and death is the coming and going of radiant light. And in this radiant light, radiant light is like inconceivable Buddha nature, I think we could say. The coming and going of birth and death is the coming and going of

[71:51]

radiant light and everything that appears from this radiant light. In other words, the ultimate truth of Buddha, empty Buddha nature can manifest as coming and going of birth and death. Any questions? Talking about the radiant light that's inward? I think that's not inside or outside, unlocatable, radiant light that pervades the universe inconceivably. Yeah, it's a nice essay where he talks about radiant light in that way, that it's not the kind of light that you can see, but the kind of light that actually is the nature of everything. So sometimes emptiness, or ultimate truth, is spoken of as radiant light. Or one bright pearl. The entire universe in ten directions is one bright pearl.

[72:55]

It's another statement about ultimate truth. The entire universe in ten directions is just one bright pearl. This is another Dogen essay called One Bright Pearl. It means the entire universe in the ten directions is neither vast nor small, neither square nor round. It's not neutral, not active, and not obvious. Because it is beyond the coming and going of birth and death, it is the coming and going of birth and death. Another play on the two truths. The whole universe In ten directions is one bright pearl, basically oneness, where there's no distinction in anything. And then it's kind of a little emptiness discussion. It's not big, it's not small, it's not square, it's not round, it's not passive, it's not active.

[73:59]

That's kind of like the Heart Sutra. This is the way the one bright pearl is. It's not all these things. Because, and therefore obviously, this one bright pearl is beyond the coming and going of birth and death, right? But because it's beyond the coming and going of birth and death, it is the coming and going of birth and death. Form itself is emptiness. Emptiness itself is form. Because all dharmas are marked by emptiness, they appear in the world of form. There's never like an abstract form. emptiness apart from form because it's the way every phenomena arises depending on conditions is the reason it's empty. That particular phenomenon is empty of independent existence. So we could say in a way that emptiness of the retreat hall is in a way different from the emptiness of this piece of paper.

[75:09]

In a way, we can say it's the same emptiness, because in both cases it's the absence of any essence. But the absence of any essential retreat hall is a little bit different than the absence of any essential piece of paper. You see how it's a little bit like language breaks down. It's not like they're two different emptinesses, really. But it's not like they're exactly the same either. Because the One Bright Pearl is beyond the coming and going of birth and death, it is itself the coming and going of birth and death. Nirvana is itself birth and death, as long as it's not meddled with by adding. Our main meddling technique is to inject essence into these perfectly fine appearances.

[76:13]

They're no problem. They're just almost like mirage-like, dream-like appearances, depending on our mind. We like to solidify them. We like to reify them. Just put a little bit of essence. Is that the activity of essence preference? I think it's preference is, I think first we start putting in essence and then based on that we then can prefer one essential thing over another essential thing. We were talking earlier that this is really the root of all our difficulties according to like these middle way teachings is this projection of independent existence or essence into things. And I say, well, how is that the root of all problems? I thought desire was the origin of suffering. And yes, true.

[77:17]

But then what's the origin of desire or preference? Is that we desire this thing over this thing because we think that they're actually two different things and that they really exist. If it's really like in a dream where they're actually just dream images, then it's like, well, if we're lucid in the dream, right? If we're like, no, it's a dream, and somebody offers us chocolate and vanilla ice cream cone, and we're like, well, they really do. I can actually taste them in the dream, right? But like, so maybe I will go with my preference because like, just for fun in the dream, but it's really just a dream, so it really doesn't matter that much, right? Like, maybe I'll even choose the vanilla. even though I kind of like chocolate. Just because it's just a dream, right? But if we're like, no, it's not actually just a dream. It's really a vanilla ice cream cone and a chocolate ice cream cone.

[78:20]

They have some essence of vanilla. The essence of the vanilla bean is really in there. And then it's like, we want that one. I want it. So does that make sense? I think this is an important point about, because we can hear these teachings about independent existence and emptiness, and it's kind of, it's very interesting philosophically, but do we see the soteriological purpose? Shohotami, this term. Soteriological. Do you know that term? Does anybody know it? Yeah? What's it mean? Uh-huh. Oh, in practice? Yeah. In Greek, Jesus is the word soteris. Now, Jesus is the Savior.

[79:22]

Yeah, that's my understanding. It's related to salvation. So particularly, you could say, maybe we think our practice is all about salvation anyway. But particularly, yeah, I think as a Christian term, you know, the salvific function of some teaching. So you could say this Middle Way philosophy has its epistemological functions about how we know things. It has its ontological functions about the status of existence and non-existence. But most importantly, it has its soteriological function. It's the way of salvation, how to be free, liberated from suffering. That's the purpose of these Middle Way teachings. And I think this is the example of like, which is maybe, I think we have to maybe contemplate this a little bit to see how, as soon as we see that something essentially exists, then that's the basis for all greed, hate, and delusion.

[80:22]

And you might say, well, even if, couldn't we have greed, hate, and delusion even if things don't inherently exist? And this is the proposal that maybe is often not so clarified. It's not so much brought out in these teachings, but this is the proposal. If we really see that things are more like dependently arisen appearances and they don't substantially, inherently, independently, essentially exist, we actually can't grasp them. If we see that they're basically means they're ungraspable, right? It's like if you see that a mirage is a mirage, you know you can't grasp it. it's just a mirage, then actually you can't, if you're really aware of the mirage-likeness of the mirage, then you can't actually try to get it as water anymore. If we slip off it a little bit and like, oh, I forgot, it really looks like water, then of course, if you really see it's a mirage, you lose our interest in grasping that it's not water, right?

[81:25]

Or the same thing with the snake and the rope, right? You know, we're scared. of an actual snake, but if you see it's really not a snake, then all fear dissipates. So, I'm not really sure how to ask this, but, so you're on the precipice, and you go, okay, I'm buying it, I'm buying it, there I go, water! At the precipice, at which precipice now are we talking? Back to conventional reality, you believe in the water. Uh-huh. And you see it happening, right? I think this is more like the precipice we were talking about is like into emptiness. It's more like we back up from the precipice into like, this looks frightening, like there's nothing down there. So let's go back where there really is some water. Oh, I was thinking of it like this. Oh, okay. We're the razor's edge. The razor's edge. Yeah, the razor's edge. Okay, so you see... We could fall off either side. We're falling into the by it side. Wipe out.

[82:27]

Yeah, yeah. You see it coming, and you see the mental formations that occur, so then what is our practice at that point? We're not suppressing how we feel because the feeling's only going to get stronger. Yeah, that's kind of meddling. Yeah, it's meddling. It's spiritual bypassing. Yeah, exactly. So then what do you think? Well, we could say these kind of simple Zen teachings that we hear a lot, like, you know, like be yourself or don't, um, don't try to avoid your experience. But I think to take that as deep as it possibly goes, like really profoundly, just, um, be right in the middle of birth and death, right? As Dogen says, don't avoid this birth and death. Right here in this conventional appearance is where the ultimate truth will be revealed. And if we try to think, like, can't I escape this and find this freedom, that actually, like, that's, Just exactly what Dogen says when you're trying to look at the North Star, but you're looking south.

[83:32]

That's exactly what we do, right? Can't I escape this? But if you want to look at the North Star, then it's maybe going to burn your eyes a little bit or something. We have to really look right there and right in the middle of it. It might just be it's too painful, right? We can't. We're just caught up in it. But I think this is... If there's... gateway to emptiness it has to be right there in the experience in birth and death can't be somewhere else like again that relative truth is called the concealer truth it conceals the ultimate and we've heard it conceals the ultimate and it's not separate slightly from the ultimate they're exactly inseparable so there it's like that it's like the doorway to the ultimate here is right here and like it's not over here. So I think that's a very practical way in Zen practice, how we say, just settle deeply into your experience.

[84:36]

And sometimes we don't really see emptiness there, right? But that, if we were to see it, that is where it would be. So I think that we can never go wrong with that practice of don't try to avoid, get away from this. Relax is another instruction, right? Relax into the experience, not, you know, not too relaxed, but upright and relaxed, awake and relaxed. It's so hard to stay there, especially when we hear about, well, I know there's a perfect freedom right nearby. It can't be right here. It must be like a little bit over here. I think we naturally do that, right? It can't be right here on this sharp razor's edge. It's so sharp. Well, anything at that very end, yes? So if the conventional truth and the ultimate truth are arising together in the same moment, supporting each other, is it like the ultimate is the ocean and the waves from the ocean are the conventional truth and the arisings that we see in the moment?

[85:50]

Yeah, that's a metaphor that's sometimes used, yeah. Like, it's a nice thing about that. Some metaphors are great. They always fall short in some little way. But as a metaphor, it's a good one because it shows how, are the waves in the ocean one or two? Well, they're not really two. It's all the same water, right? And yet, there's waves in the ocean where they have different definitions. So that's a very nice example of how the ultimate and the relative, not one, not two, we say in Zen. It's a Zen phrase, and it's kind of nice that we don't so much say in Zen, it's all one, because that's ten, sometimes it's said, like one bright pearl, Dogen does say, right? But there's a classic thing, not one, not two, it's a double negation, because if you say it's all one, then you can grasp it's one bright pearl, my precious. But if you say not one, not two, it's less to grasp, and it's quite accurate.

[86:53]

It's actually not one, the waves in the ocean are not one thing exactly, and they're not two. It's a nice, concise statement. Thank you for listening to this podcast offered by the San Francisco Zen Center. Our Dharma talks are offered free of charge, and this is made possible by the donations we receive. Your financial support helps us to continue to offer the Dharma. For more information, visit sfcc.org and click giving.

[87:27]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_92.98