Happy 4th of July, Day of Independence, Independence Day. This is the day that we celebrate the astonishing signing of the Declaration of Independence, which says, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, we would say now, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights,

[01:03]

governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. So this is actually a terrific statement, I think, which, of course, we take for granted, it's just an old thing, it doesn't seem to mean much to us, but actually it's a pretty terrific statement, and we shouldn't take it for granted, that we are all fundamentally equal and identical in our true nature, and so therefore we are all worthy of love and respect, that we all have absolutely the right to be alive, to be free, to be happy. This is a terrific thing, I think, something that we should celebrate and be happy about. But I think if the Buddha were around, he would endorse this statement wholeheartedly. So I hope that everyone remembers this and has a good celebration today.

[02:06]

And we also have, sort of have the young people's program today. We have two representatives down here, hi. There was a mix-up, I think this is usually the first Sunday of the month is usually the time for the young people, but somehow it was unclear whether we were having it today, so the diehards showed up. And somebody told me that the young folks are studying the precept about right speech, is that true? Are you? Maybe you don't know, but they told me you were studying about right speech. So I was assigned the topic of right speech to talk to you about. And in Buddhism, right speech doesn't mean right speech as opposed to wrong speech, exactly.

[03:11]

Right speech means more like speech that is straight or upright, not upside-down speech. That's what right speech means. And there's a little story about this in one sutra. Once the Buddha had a dipper that was a little bit full of water, just had a little bit of water in it, not much. And he said to one of his disciples, do you think there's a lot of water in this dipper? And the disciple said, no, there's not much water in the dipper. And the Buddha said, well, that's how much goodness there is in someone who deliberately tells lies. Then he took the little bit of water in the dipper and he threw it away. And he said to the monk, do you think there's much water in here now?

[04:14]

And the monk said, no, there's even less water in it now. And the Buddha said, that's how much goodness there is left in someone who deliberately continues to tell lies. Then, the Buddha took the dipper and turned it upside-down on a rock. He said, a person who deliberately tells lies is like this dipper, upside-down. So, a person who deliberately tells lies is like an upside-down person. It's like, telling lies deliberately is like being upside-down, walking around on your head instead of on your feet. Imagine, it's difficult to walk around on your head. Don't you think?

[05:16]

Very difficult, and the path of deliberately lying is a difficult path. But the worst thing about it is that when you walk around on your head, you can't see the sky, right? You only see the ground. And being able to see the sky is one of the best things. Don't you think? Imagine if you couldn't see the sky. So, telling the truth and being committed to being truthful is like walking around upright and being able to see the sky. So, that's what the Buddha had to say about bright speech, about not lying. And I would say that if you want to, if you get bored, you can get up in the middle of the talk and go out and do this.

[06:18]

If you can sit through the whole talk, congratulations, that would be really amazing. But either way, I would recommend to you, and also to everyone else, this meditation practice of looking at the sky. Just being quiet and following your breath and gazing at the sky without looking for anything, just looking at the clouds and the blue sky. It's a wonderful meditation practice. And if you do that, you will appreciate and see the point of the Buddha's recommendation to us to speak truthfully and not to lie. So, you remember that, right? Don't walk on your head. Look at the sky. Okay? Always remember. So, this question of right speech, the proper use of our language, is one of the most interesting

[07:40]

things, I think. We are all human beings. We are all now very enthusiastic about new technologies and so on. But the most interesting and intimate and confusing and powerful of all technologies is definitely language itself. In fact, you can probably say that language is humanity. Because it is the language-making ability and the language-making consciousness that is what distinguishes human consciousness. And so, language is so close to us that we really can't understand what it is. It's like a fish swimming in the water. For the fish, there's really no such thing as water.

[08:40]

It's just the way things are. There's nothing you can separate yourself from and analyze as water for a fish. And we're like that with language. I, myself, have been thinking about language all my adult life. And I have no idea about it. I just don't understand about language. And this is always what I'm writing about in my poetry. Can you know what language is? Can you know what you are? The poet Paul Celan says, whenever we speak with things in this way, and here he's referring to poetry, which is an encounter with things, speaking to things. He says, whenever we speak with things in this way, we dwell on the question of their where from and where to.

[09:43]

An open question without resolution. So on the one hand, language is a great prison. The prison house of language. We are all literally locked inside our language. And we are only able to see as far as we can say. On the other hand, language is the key to our freedom. Language opens our imagination and allows us to reach out and touch the world. And also to fly out beyond it. And in Zen practice in particular, one of our most important efforts is to stand within language in a fresh way. To open up the hand of thought and let our language be extremely flexible and open.

[10:47]

What this means is that we understand and we appreciate language in many different ways. On the one hand, every word means something and therefore not something else. But also every word, as soon as we speak it, is gone. And so every word is nothing. It dissolves into nothingness. When we speak about something, we might have the illusion that we are understanding something or controlling something. But actually it's not so. When we're speaking, we may think we're speaking about something, but we're never speaking about anything. We are just being human. We are just expressing ourselves. It's when we get tangled up into something we think we are speaking about that we suffer.

[11:58]

This is the cause of suffering. So maybe it would be better if we understood language as singing or music. Music doesn't really have any meaning exactly, but it's a very valuable thing. We could hardly do without it. But no one can say what it means. In the early Buddhist sutras, there's a very simple, deceptively simple understanding of language. But when you look at these sutras carefully and think about them, you realize that the understanding expressed there about language is quite subtle. The Buddha recognized the pivotal nature of language for human consciousness, and he saw that the trap of language comes fundamentally from our identification with our own experience.

[13:01]

Experience, you know, is something that comes and goes in time, appearing and disappearing simultaneously, indefinable, unpossessable. But instead of letting experience be what it is, our human, linguistically charged consciousness wants to fix experience in time and in thought. And language carries this habit deeply within itself, and so that's why language is such a tricky business. As human beings, we are all perfect and divine creatures, just as the Declaration of Independence implies. Equally, every one of us is that way, all possessing Buddha nature, all worthy of freedom and happiness. And yet, we only have to look at our world to see

[14:08]

that we apparently are also quite small-minded, selfish and destructive creatures. And the difference is whether or not we are able to untie the knot of language. And in Buddhism, all the teachings about emptiness, non-attachment, are about this, to help us to see through the obscuring net of views of language and to see clearly things as they are, to allow things to be as they are. In the early formulation of the Buddhist path, the Eightfold Path, the first three members of the path are Right View, Right Intention and Right Speech. And when there's Right View, Right Intention and Right Speech, then there can be Right Conduct. And when there's Right Conduct, then there can be meditation practice and mindfulness, which will lead to accurate wisdom,

[15:10]

which will reinforce Right View. So Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, these are in the territory of language. And so the Buddha saw from the very beginning of his 45 years of teaching how important language was to our own freedom, our own personal happiness. So the Buddha was very sophisticated about language. Like Socrates, the Buddha was a master of dialogue because he saw how important Right View was. He thought about his use of language, and he realized that Right View isn't some doctrine or specific truth about things that we could define. Sometimes people ask me,

[16:12]

what's the Buddhist view of this or that? Bye, fellas. Enjoy the sky. Yeah, that's it. Oh, my God, the prison house of Zen is stuck. There you go. It happens to some of us, you know, we get in here and we can't get out again. Fortunately, they can escape. Anyway, I was saying that sometimes people ask me, what's the Buddhist view of this and that? But I always say there is no Buddhist view of this or that or anything because the Buddhist view is a non-view. But it's not a non-view that's the opposite of a view. It's a non-view that includes various viewpoints. Non-view is simply a way to be free within language.

[17:15]

So, basically, the Buddha spent his entire life talking to people. And he did this not because he was, you know, a gabby fellow, because he liked to hear himself talk or he liked to know how right he always was or how brilliant he was, or he liked to explain everything to people. Like a school teacher. But he did it in order to help people see through the smoke screen of their own language and their own views. He was a great master of talking to people, even though you think of him as a meditator. He did meditate, of course, but he was really a master of talking to people. And he seemed to be really good at answering people's questions, at least if you read the Buddhist sutras. He never makes a mistake when it comes to answering people's questions. And somebody once asked him, you know, how can you do that?

[18:20]

How do you answer questions? And he said to the person, there's four ways to answer a question. The first way is to give a categorical answer. That means when somebody asks you a question, you answer it. You say yes or no. You just answer it. But that's only one of the ways of answering a question. The second way, he said, is an analytical way. Instead of answering categorically, you examine the question. You clarify definitions. You try to determine what is actually being said in the question. And usually this involves deconstructing the question. The third way of answering the question is by posing a counter-question. Which the Buddha often did. And you pose a counter-question in order to bring the questioner back to his or her own mind,

[19:21]

own experience. Redirecting attention away from the entanglement of the question to something real and true that actually lies behind the question, although the questioner may not realize it. And the last way of answering a question, he said, is just putting it aside. With the knowledge that there are some questions that are so hopelessly entangled that making any effort to answer them would be to get stuck in them like flypaper. And getting stuck in someone's question like flypaper doesn't help anybody. So you should just put this question aside. Questions like that are the sort of metaphorical equivalent of beating your head against the wall. Your head just gets all bloody. You can't get through anyway.

[20:22]

And putting the question aside is like realizing that there's no use beating your head. You might as well just calmly walk around the wall. And then you're on the other side. And your head is still intact. So this was the way that the Buddha looked at language and answering questions. And what I'd like to do now is read you a little sutra from the Majjhima Nikaya, number 58. You can look it up in your Buddhist canon that you have in your library at home, if you want. It's Majjhima Nikaya, number 58. The Abhaya Sutra means sutra spoken to Prince Abhaya. And the subject of the sutra is language and right speech. So I'll just finish my talk by reading and commenting a little bit on this whole sutra. Once I heard...

[21:25]

Ananda always is the narrator of the sutras. Once I heard that the Buddha was staying near Rajagaha in the bamboo grove in the squirrel's sanctuary. Then Prince Abhaya went to Ngantha Nataputta, who was one of the Buddha's rivals. You know, there were a lot of wandering religious teachers. And Ngantha Nataputta was one of them. So Prince Abhaya went to Ngantha Nataputta and he went. And on arrival, he bowed down to him and sat on one side. And as he was sitting there, Ngantha Nataputta said to him, Come now, Prince. Refute the words of the contemplative Gautama, the Buddha. And this admirable report about you will spread afar. The words of the contemplative Gautama so mighty, so powerful

[22:25]

were refuted by Prince Abhaya. So Ngantha's trying to get the prince to confound the Buddha so that the prince will become famous. You know, like, wow. Only one person in history ever bested the Buddha in debate. That will be you. And you'll be known all over. So this is interesting because this is the origin of the confusion that we have about language and speech. Because we want to be someone. We want to be right. We want to be famous. We want to dominate. We want to be worthwhile. We want to show ourselves. And this is why we get mixed up in our language. Actually, language is the main agent of me-ness. M-E-N-E-S-S. Me-ness is all in our language. Language is the cause of me-ness and the result, also, of me-ness. So the prince is interested in doing this. So he says, but how, venerable sir,

[23:25]

will I refute the words of the Contemplative Gautama, so mighty, so powerful? And Naganta Nataputta says, come now, prince. Go to the Contemplative Gautama, and on arrival, say this. Venerable sir, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing and disagreeable to others? If the Contemplative Gautama thus asked answers, the Tathagata would say words that are unendearing and disagreeable to others. Then you should say, then, sir, how is there any difference between you and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing and disagreeable to others. But, if the Contemplative Gautama thus answers, I would not say words that are unendearing and disagreeable to others, then you should say, then how, venerable sir, did you say

[24:28]

to Devadatta that Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable. For Devadatta was upset and disgruntled at those words of yours. So these words were something. He's quoting that the Buddha did say this to Devadatta, who was his cousin, who was the villain in the Buddha's sutras. Devadatta was trying to take over the sangha from the Buddha and tried to kill the Buddha and so forth. So the Buddha said, Devadatta, no good is going to come of this. He said those words to him. So, if the Buddha says I never say anything disagreeable, then quote back to him what he said to Devadatta and say, hey, what about that? So this is a great way to catch someone, right? Quote back to him his own words out of their original context and see if you can get him to

[25:30]

defend his words. Once you identify with your own words and try to defend them, you're in trouble because now you're caught in language. So that's what Nigantha Nataputta says that he should do. He continues, when the contemplative Gautama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up, which is what Master Mumon says in his famous commentary to the first koan of Mumonkan. He says, the famous koan Mu, he says this koan Mu is like a red hot iron ball that you swallowed. You won't be able to swallow it down. It's stuck in your throat. You won't be able to swallow it down and you won't be able to vomit it up because either way it will be very painful. You're stuck with it. So he says, this will be like

[26:31]

what will happen to the Buddha if you ask this question. It will be just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat. He would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Either way it will cut him. In the same way, when the contemplative Gautama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. So this is binary logic. Yes, no logic. You think it's either one or the other and either way you're going to be wrong. So, actually we have to go beyond yes and no. Anyway, this was how Naganta Nataputta said Prince Abhaya could defeat the Buddha. So Abhaya said, as you say, Venerable Sir, and he got up from his seat. He bowed down to him, circumambulated him traditional signs of respect for a religious person and then he went to the Buddha

[27:32]

and on arrival he bowed down to the Buddha and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he glanced up at the sun and he thought to himself, today is not the day to refute the Blessed One's words. Tomorrow, in my own house, I will overturn the Blessed One's words. So maybe he got a little cold feet there. Today is not the day. Besides, it would be better to do it in my house. I'll feel more confident over at my house than over here at the Buddha's house. So he said to the Blessed One, May the Blessed One, together with three others, acquiesce to my offer of tomorrow's meal. And the Blessed One, as always, the Buddha, acquiesced, said yes by saying nothing. Then, Prince Abhaya, understanding the Buddha's acquiescence, got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One, circumambulated him and left. Then, after the night had passed, the Blessed One, early in the morning, put on his robes and carrying his bowl and outer robe, went to Prince Abhaya's home.

[28:34]

On arrival, he sat down on a seat made ready and Prince Abhaya, with his own hands, served and satisfied the Buddha with fine staple and non-staple foods. Then, when the Blessed One had eaten and had removed his hand from his bowl, which is a sign that he's now finished, Prince Abhaya took a lower seat and sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, Venerable Sir, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing and disagreeable to others? And the Buddha replied, Prince, there is no categorical yes or no answer to that. And then the Prince said, Then right here, Venerable Sir, Ngantha Nataputta is destroyed. The Prince was not a very calculating fellow.

[29:42]

He right away gave up and revealed the whole plan. And the Buddha said, Prince, why do you say that Ngantha Nataputta is destroyed? And the Prince said, Well, just yesterday, Venerable Sir, I went to Ngantha Nataputta, and he said, Come now, Prince, go to the Columbus, and so on. Just as if a two-horned chestnut, and so on and so on. So he spilled the beans. Now the commentary, the Prince apparently showed up, was at his home, you know, the Prince was sitting there with his baby son on his lap. And the commentary says that the reason he had his baby son on his lap is because it was a debater's trick. And the idea was that

[30:46]

while he was debating with the Buddha, should he start losing ground, he would maybe pinch the little fellow somehow, causing him to wail and scream. And then he would say, Oh, excuse me, but I guess I can't continue the conversation. So this is one good use of children. Little children. You don't really have to get so involved in anything that's disturbing. You always say, Oh, I have to go take care of my child. So anyway, this little boy was lying face up on the Prince's lap while they were having this conversation. And the Buddha said to the Prince, What do you think, Prince? If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of a nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel in its mouth, what would you do? And the Prince said, I would take it out.

[31:50]

Venerable Sir, if I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking the finger of my right, I would stick my finger down the baby's throat and yank it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy after all. He's my son. I would do that. Then the Buddha responds in the same way, Prince. Number one, in the case of words that the Buddha knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, and unbeneficial means not connected with freedom. If it's not endearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them. So this is actually the official Buddhist criteria for whether or not something is worth saying, whether it's true, whether it's beneficial, and whether it's pleasing to others.

[32:52]

So the Buddha's saying, if it's not true, it's not beneficial, and it's not pleasing to others, then I wouldn't say it. In the case of words that I know to be true, but unbeneficial, and disagreeable to others, I do not say them. In the case of words that are true, beneficial, but unendearing, disagreeable to others, I have a sense, the Buddha says, of the proper time for saying them. So in other words, if something is not true and not beneficial, don't say them. If something is true, but not beneficial, don't say it. If something is true and beneficial, but it's not pleasing, sometimes you have to say things that are not pleasing, but you have to know when to say them, and how to say them.

[33:54]

You don't just say them. Number four, in the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he doesn't say them. You see? It's not enough to just be flattering and nice. If it's unbeneficial and untrue, don't say them. And five, in the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and agreeable, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because, like you, prince, who have sympathy for your son, the Buddha has sympathy for living beings.

[34:55]

So, notice what all of this amounts to. That the Buddha doesn't just yak, whatever, comes to mind. He respects and understands the awesome power of language. Which, after all, for the Buddha was his chief tool for doing good, was language. And he understood its awesome power. So he thinks how to speak. And in the doing of that, he's always motivated by sympathy for others. And it's interesting that this particular analogy in having sympathy for others is used as one would have sympathy for a child one's own child. In this case, love of one's own child is very strong and very pure. And this, by implication, is how we ought to regard ourselves and all beings

[35:57]

as if we were our own child, or all beings were our own child. I think that Buddhism is very tolerant as a way of life and a way of thinking. And it's not moralistic. And that's not because Buddhism doesn't distinguish between right and wrong, but because Buddhadharma sees all sentient beings as one's own child. And so there's always this attitude of gentleness and understanding. Sometimes you might have to scold a child, or remove a child from dangerous circumstances, even in an energetic, even violent way sometimes. But even when you do that, you never despise the child, or think ill of it, or have afflictive, negative emotions toward the child. So this is the motivation behind the Buddhist speaking.

[37:00]

Then the prince asks another question. Venerable sir, when wise nobles or priests, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the Tathagata and ask him, does this line of reasoning appear to his awareness beforehand? If those who approach me ask this, I, thus asked, will answer in this way, etc., etc. Or, in other words, does he reason out and think through questions, or does the Tathagata come up with the answer on the spot? In that case, prince, the Buddha replies, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Are you skilled in the parts of a chariot? And the prince says, yes, venerable sir, I am skilled in the parts of a chariot. And what do you think? When people come and ask you, what is the name of this part of the chariot, does this line of reasoning

[38:03]

appear to your awareness beforehand? If those who approach me ask this, I, thus asked, will answer in this way, etc. Or do you come up with an answer on the spot? Venerable sir, I am renowned for being skilled in the parts of a chariot. All the parts of a chariot are well known to me. So I come up with an answer on the spot. Now it's interesting, the Buddha asked this particular counter-question because this is kind of a question that allows the prince to remember that he's a prince, that he has great skills and advantages and benefits and competencies. Maybe before this, the prince might have been feeling a little foolish, that he was following Nigantha Nataputta, maybe feeling a little on the defensive. So Buddha asks him a counter-question that emphasizes his own strengths. This tells us that the Buddha's interest is never in making someone look foolish

[39:04]

or diminishing someone. He's not interested in winning debates. He's not even interested really in the truth for its own sake. He wants people to feel happy. He also wants them to understand the Dharma because it's to their benefit to understand. But he sees that by making them happy and allowing them to feel good about their own lives, this is a good way to get them to eventually see the Dharma. So the prince responds in that way and the Buddha then says, in the same way, prince, when wise nobles or priests, householders or contemplatives have formulated questions, come to the Buddha and ask him, he comes up with an answer on the spot, just like you. Why is that? Because the property of the Dharma is thoroughly penetrated by the Tathagata. From his thorough penetration of the property of the Dharma, he comes up with the answer on the spot without pre-digested

[40:04]

knowledge. So in the Buddha Dharma, truth has no set formula. It's all language. All truth comes in response to conditions. There's the famous Zen master Yun Man who was once asked, what is the teaching of a lifetime? Meaning, what is the fundamental point of the Buddha's 45 years of teaching and talking? And Yun Man said, an appropriate statement. When we practice for a long time and internalize the Dharma, we make the Dharma our own. And then all our language is improvised and comes from the heart of compassion. There is no defined absolute truth that we hold on to. So when the Buddha said this, Prince Abhaya became

[41:08]

thrilled. And he said, magnificent, venerable sir. Magnificent. Just as if he were to place upright what had been overturned, were to reveal what was hidden, were to show the way to one who was lost, or were to hold up a lamp in the dark so that those with eyes could see forms. In this same way, the Blessed One has, through many lines of reasoning, made the Dharma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dharma, to the Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to Him for refuge from this day forward for life. And that's the end of the Abhaya Sutra. So, in ceremonies, when I give people precepts and we come to the speech precepts, I always say,

[42:12]

we make and destroy worlds with our words. And this is really true. Our speech, our thought, and our written words are very, very powerful. And we literally make the world of consciousness out of our words. So it would be good to pay attention to what it is we think and say and write. Great power there to do good and a great power to create misery and confusion. And it's not a matter of being correct or circumspect as much as it is a matter of responding with honesty and with heart to conditions of the present moment. All of us definitely have the capacity to love others wholeheartedly

[43:14]

as if they were our own children because all of us, by virtue of human consciousness, possess Buddha nature, exactly the mind of Buddha. And if we always remember this point and treat ourselves as if it were so, then our words can be songs. And these songs can definitely bring a joy and a clarity to our minds and to all of our relationships. So, happy Fourth of July.

[43:58]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ