Today I would like to speak about things that were discussed yesterday in incipient phases like Buddha nature, Tathagatagarbha, And I would also like to read from the Sutra. So the three basic themes today. One is, as I said, Buddha nature, Tathagatagarbha, what are called the Four Inversions, which is a kind of critique of the misappropriation, misunderstanding of the Four Noble Truths. And within this includes the critique of emptiness as an absolute. a rather new way of thinking about self and non-self and a relationship between those two so I always think it's better to read than for me to lecture I don't know how you feel about that but in any case let's do some reading we didn't get through any reading yesterday so Greg if you could read or give the book to a good reader let's start I would like to do a little reading from page 59 to 61

[01:30]

Okay, and this is from here. Let's see. So, the fourth line on page 59, then the Bhikshu spoke to the Buddha. Then the Bhikshu spoke to the Buddha, saying, world honored one, we have not only cultivated our perception of na-self, we have also cultivated other discerning perceptions. That is, we are concerned with what is suffering and what is impermanence in addition to what is not self. World-honored one. Like an intoxicated person whose mind in a daze sees mountains, rivers, stone walls, grasses and trees, palaces, houses, the sun, moon or stars, as if they were all spinning round. World-honored one. Anyone who does not cultivate his perception of suffering, impermanence, and non-self is disoriented and cannot be called a true noble seeker.

[02:39]

Undisciplined in many ways, such a person transmigrates in the cycle of birth and death. World-honored one, these are the reasons why we carefully practice these discernments. Excuse me. So what we have just had from the audience, the monastic audience... is the typical statement of how we live as Buddhists and what we are dedicated to in our practice and in our spiritual group. And here is the Buddha, again, remember, in the context of his final sermon, who responds to this. You have understood the written letters, but you have not penetrated into what they mean. What does this story mean? It is that living beings on the void are just like that intoxicated person who, looking up at the sun and moon, perceives them to be spinning when in fact they are not.

[03:44]

Blinded by violence and ignorance, they create misconceptions in the form of inversion in their thinking. What is self? They recognize mounself. What is constant or permanent, they reckon as impermanent. What is pure, they reckon as impure, and what is joyful, they reckon as painful. Because living beings are deluded by the defilements, even if they recognize these as errors, they still do not comprehend what this means, just like that intoxicated person who perceives something to be spinning. So I'll read the next part slowly because it's a bit dense. Okay, go ahead. And a little louder, yeah. Self is what Buddha means. Permanence is what Dharma body means. Bliss is what Nirvana means. Purity is what Dharma means.

[04:47]

Why do you say, you have any perception of self to reflect arrogance and pride and the trans-migration of seksara? With that attitude, are many of you declared, I cultivate my perception of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. These three types of practice will have no real meaning. I will explain to you three special dharmas to cultivate instead. When what is painful is regarded as joyful, and what is joyful is regarded as painful, that is an inverted dharma. When what is impermanent is regarded as permanent, and what is permanent is regarded as impermanent, that is an inverted dharma. When what is non-self is regarded as self, and what is self is regarded as non-self, that is an inverted dharma. When what is impure is regarded as pure, and what is pure is regarded as impure, that is an inverted dharma.

[05:54]

It is because of these four inversions that people do not understand the proper practice of dharma. Excuse me. You probably didn't notice this, but in fact, the four... four qualities that the Buddha warns them against are, in fact, the four qualities that define what the Buddha nature is. That is, it is, and what he's talking about is what the Bhikshas have reiterated to him based on his previous teachings are all negative, non-self, suffering, etc. And what the Buddha now is saying to them, yes, that is true in a certain context, but there is another truth that is joyful, that is blissful, that is permanent. And you must also cultivate that understanding as well. And if you only stick to one side and don't get the other side, then you only can go so far. And what he's saying to them, this is what Buddha nature is.

[07:00]

And if you cannot understand that, you cannot penetrate to what the Tathagdagarbha is, what the essence of what the Buddha is. When you are enveloped by a dharma of pain or suffering, you can still entertain the notion of joy or bliss. When you are enveloped by a dharma of impermanence, you can still entertain the notion of permanence. When you are enveloped by a dharma of non-self, you can still entertain the notion of self. And when you are enveloped by a dharma of impurity, you can still entertain the notion of purity. The mundane world contains permanence, bliss, self, and purity.

[08:03]

And the super-mundane world also contains permanence, bliss, self, and purity. And while these words, in the context of the dogma, in the mundane world, may have no meaning, in the context of the super-mundane world, these words do have meaning. Why is this? It is because people are affected by these photos. Why is this? It is because people are affected by these four inversions, but they do not understand the meaning of the Dharma caught in the mundane world. And what is different for that? It is because people in the mundane world are impacted by three inversions. Perception, reflection, and theory. And thus they perceive suffering in what is joyous. They perceive impermanence in what is permanent. They perceive non-self in what is self.

[09:05]

and they perceive impurity in what is pure. These errors are known as inversions, and it is by means of them that written letters may function in the world, yet their true meanings remain not known. And what are those meanings? Non-self actually denotes sedusara, self denotes tathagata, impermanence denotes shravakas and prateke buddhas, permanence denotes the dharma-body of tathagatas, pain, or dukkha denotes all other paths. Bliss denotes nirvana itself. Impurity denotes created dharmas. Purity denotes the true teaching of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. All these are what I call the non-inversions. It is by means of what is not inverted one can understand the meaning of letters. If you want to separate yourself from the four inversions, you must understand permanence, bliss, purity and self.

[10:06]

Great. Okay. Thanks very much. Any questions about that? That's pretty straightforward. When he says self is what Buddha means, I'm just curious about this introduction of self. Very good. Yeah, exactly. That's exactly the whole point. And this whole thing revolves around that problem. And So in some sense, this is the underlying theme of the entire sutra. And that is that they're, and so in order to get, let's do this. Let's read, okay, I got another one here. So I want to read a parable about Buddha nature that will explain how this works. and yeah okay so this is on page there are five parables of buddha nature we have time to read all of them but the best one is um page 227 at the bottom of 227 well let's read the first two in any way the first one's not too long um and i was hoping to read all of them today but let's just read the first two and the second one really really is clear

[11:29]

pertains to your question. The first one really doesn't. Okay, so who's going to read parable one on the bottom of page? Yeah, 226. Right. Good man, consider the parable of an impoverished woman who had a treasure of pure gold within the area of her home. None of the people living in the house were aware of its existence, be they children or adults. On one particular occasion, however, an outsider appeared who knew all about the gold, and spoke of it to the woman, using expedient means. He then said, I would like to hire you now. You can remove some weaves for me. And replied, I cannot. But if you were to point out to my son where this treasure trove of gold is that you speak of, after that I would quickly come to do that for you. The man answered, I know an expedient way to show this to your son. The woman responded, None of the people in my house, child or adult, know anything about this.

[12:35]

How could you possibly know? The man said, I will now make everything clear. This prompted the woman to respond, Indeed, I also want to see it. Can you show it to me as well? The man then immediately... The man that immediately dug up the treasure of pure gold that had been under their home. When the woman saw it, she was ecstatic, enamored of how miraculous the entire event was. She regarded the man with deep admiration. Good man, the Buddha nature of living beings is just like this. Not all living beings are able to perceive it, just like that treasure trove of which that poor woman was not aware. Good man, what I have now shown is the universality of Buddha-nature, possessed by all living beings, yet obscured by their defilements, analogous to a poor person who possesses a treasure of pure gold that she cannot see.

[13:48]

Today, the Thottomita has shown the universally existing treasure repositories of enlightenment in living beings. In other words, Buddha-nature itself. When living beings do perceive this, their hearts are filled with joy and a deep reverence for the Tathagata. In this parable, the person of skillful means is the Tathagata, the woman living in poverty represents all living beings, and the treasure of pure gold is the Buddha-nature. Okay, now before we get to the second parable, There are a number of things that are particularly symbolic here of the whole nature of this discourse. Notice that we have the term a little bit before, that today the Tathagata has shown the universally existing treasure repositories of enlightenment in living beings. That's a reference to the Tathagata Garbha. So Tathagata Garbha is quite a complex idea, and I think it's just made much more complex because of the unfortunate linguistic complexity of this

[14:53]

And I didn't write this down, but this is... And I'm trying to keep the Sanskrit and Chinese to a minimum, but basically what happens is Garva... Tathagata, of course, is a synonym for Buddha. Garva in Sanskrit means two things. It means a womb, and it also means an embryo inside the womb. So depending on which sutra you look at, sometimes Tathagata Garva is used to mean a kind of universal womb that we are all included within. Okay? But sometimes Tathagatagarbha means the embryo of a Tathagatagarbha. That is the unrealized, unmanifest, but nonetheless hearts beating, growing, right? Buddha nature, okay? And that is... So in the sense of embryo, that's how it's usually translated. It comes over as Buddha nature. And... What this sutra decided to do was to translate Garva with the Chinese character for storehouse, and often with the adjective before being treasured.

[15:53]

A treasury, a treasured storehouse containing, in other words, a room containing some treasure inside. What is that treasure inside? That's the Buddha nature. Now, what is that Buddha nature? Well, this is another part of the confusion. So if you think of it as a Buddha embryo, you can get some kind of abstract idea. But another part of this is that the term in Sanskrit most of the time is Buddha Datu. And that's what I have on the previous piece of paper. And Datu means relic. So that's a bit more confusing. We'll get to that in a second. But let's read the next parable so we can get answered the question that we had before. Go ahead. Parable 2. In addition, good man, consider the story of a caring woman and her infant son who had become ill. In distress, the woman sent for a physician, and when he arrived, he mixed together medicine made of three things, clarified butter, milk, and granulated honey. In this sutra, the greatest flavor in all the world is something that comes from clarified butter, but the greatest medicine in all the world is butter.

[17:05]

So just as a cultural anecdote, a cultural aside here, the Chinese who did not have cows, who did not drink milk, when they saw this thing about butter, they had no idea what they were talking about. So there are all these translations of various forms of butter and yogurt and clarified butter and curds and whey and all these things, and the Chinese translate all of them with a character for alcohol. They all think they're... It's the only thing they could guess because they probably heard from Central Asia people took yak milk and they fermented it into beer and things, right? So they think there's supposed to be some fermented form of milk. Anyway, it was... So here's the situation for me as a translator. Do I translate the Chinese notion that this is some kind of drink? Or do I translate what's really coming from India? Anyway, never mind. As he gave the mixture to her child, the physician explained... After the child takes the medicine, do not give him your milk. You may feed him only after he has fully digested the medicine. So the mother then smeared a bitter tasting substance on her breasts and says to her young child, My breasts are smeared with poison, so you must not touch them.

[18:14]

When the child became hungry, he wanted his mother's milk. But hearing that her breasts were poisonous, he pulled away from her. Eventually the medicine was absorbed by the child, whereupon the mother washed her breasts with water and swallowed up her son. Come, I shall give you milk. But at that point, though the little boy felt hunger and thirst, what he had heard earlier about the poison prevented him from approaching her. The mother then told him, it was only because I was giving you medicine that I used the poison. Now that you have fully digested the medicine, I have cleaned myself completely, so you may come and drink from my breasts without pain or bitterness. Upon hearing this, the infant ventured returned and resumed his feeding. Good man, the Tathagata is just like this. It was for the sake of saving everyone that I'd previously taught living beings to cultivate their understanding of non-self in all dharmas, explaining that after they have practiced in this manner, they will have forsaken their egotism forever and attain nirvana.

[19:19]

I taught the non-existence of self in order to dispel erroneous views circulating in the mundane world and reveal a super-mundane dharma to replace it. In addition, I showed that worldly presumptions of self are fallacious and non-real. Cultivating the dharma of non-self is therefore meant to cleanse one's identity. Just as in this parable of the woman who smeared her breast with bitter flavor in order to help her child, In like manner, the Tathagata explained that dharmas are all without self in order to lead his followers to cultivate emptiness. And just as the woman called her child only after washing her breasts because she wanted him to resume feeding, I also chose this particular moment now to expound the Tathagata dharva. For this reason, bhikkhus, do not be afraid. Like that small child who eventually returned to drink his mother's milk after hearing her calling him, Mikus on their own should also distinguish the fact that the Thakita Garbha cannot possibly not exist.

[20:23]

Okay. Does that make sense? So, in other words, what the Buddha is saying now, again, remember the context, right? This is my last statement to you. I have brought you to this point, and now you must... understand that this was an upaya, this was a skillful means to get you to the point where you could understand what Tadakadagava really is. And this repository of, essentially, of truth that is within you could not be accessed through normal, mundane consciousness. That had to be deconstructed. That had to be taken apart. That had to be prevented from ever arising again in the same controlling manner that it had before. What's particularly pernicious about mundane consciousness is that it's habitual. And therefore very hard to become fully conscious of and very hard to get control over. So the previous teachings of non-self are particularly strong and relentless. And if you read sutras, you'll see them over and over again in lots of different manners, appearing in lots of different ways and different contexts.

[21:32]

And this first, of course... If you study the history of Buddhism, we know this begins with a discussion about how humans construct their identity, and then it's taken down to the level of individual phenomenon, like we talked about at the table yesterday. But now, and so that is what the Buddha is saying here is, I'm putting that into the category of emptiness rhetoric. In other words, that is the required negative deconstruction that we have to go through to get to this positive assertion. The positive assertion is Thakadagarbha and Buddha nature. This is a positive thing. This is permanent, blissful, it is self, and it is pure. Yeah? So I noticed that the positive assertion comes as the fruit of two negations. Thakadagarbha could not possibly not exist. Exactly. Can you say a little bit about that double negation form? Oh, yes, yes. It's very common. So a double negation... both in Chinese and Sanskrit, is a very strong affirmation.

[22:33]

It's stronger than a simple positive statement. So that's just part of the linguistic discourse, how it works. And so they do it that way because they want to be very clear about this. Now remember also, this is kind of a surprising, unexpected teaching here, right? Just like the vegetarianism that comes up in the sutra. As I mentioned yesterday, when the Buddha declares that we should be vegetarian, I would like you all to be vegetarian. And the Bhikshu said, yes, but he didn't say that before. Before he told us about different situations in which it was all right to eat meat. And those of you who spend time in Theravadan countries know that the Theravada Buddhism is not vegetarian. And the Buddha says, yes, but that was because of a particular... Again, that was an upaya. I had to get you to a certain position. But now, this is the last thing I want to say to you, that your life will be purified if you can live it in a vegetarian manner. And the reason is... And again, there's various reasons for it, the reasons which are obvious, but your relationship to the taking of life.

[23:37]

And he also tells him, by the way, when you eat meat, you smell like death. And as a monastic... and you represent the truth to the world, to the mundane world, why would people want to smell death on you? You should smell of life, not death, something like that. So it's a very intense kind of rhetoric. But again, so these things come in a surprising way. The whole way the sutra is written is this kind of double negative that is, I'm telling you this, and I'm telling you in a very forceful manner. And sometimes, in order to emphasize that, he will say things like, you smell like death. he'll use even military analogies okay like you're a soldier at the forefront of battle you know you have to be courageous and pushing forward with with this thing um so it's it's it's just the nature this particular text is very strong that way very emotionally powerful at times almost scary okay and by the way um anyone who's follower of vajrayana buddhism will see that same kind of language used much more frequently

[24:40]

And as far as I'm concerned, and I have a graduate student who wants to pursue this, I think this is the sort of beginning of the tantric rhetoric. It's sort of what we call proto-tantric, maybe. It's not tantric at all. Vajrayana hasn't even been conceived of yet. But you can see the seeds of that kind of very hyperbolic, strong language, used symbolically, right, that are right here. And the people who like that kind, who get inspired by this kind of language, then take this, and of course... You run with it and expand upon it. That's just a discourse strategy separate from the content. Okay, yeah. That's right. Very good. It's not really surprising. If you understand that and you understand that when... If you can put... self into that instead of non-self? Can you do that? Well, that's my second question.

[25:45]

What's the difference between self as Buddha and nature and self as Atman? Okay, so that supposedly was in the parable of the woman and the child. Does that make sense or not make sense? I didn't understand that. Yeah, I understand that. So, anyone else want to try to explain instead of me? How do you guys, someone else, how do you make sense of what we just heard? So, the self that's the... that comes after the Atman has been deconstructed, the sutra calls Maha Atman. And the Maha Atman is Buddha nature. In other words, this is the self of a Buddha. And that is permanent. And that is nirvanic. Therefore, it is joyful. So in the Pali canon, most of the descriptions of nirvana are... A negation of what it is not. It is not this, it is not that, right? But here we have statements of nirvana, and not only in this sutra, in other Mahayana sutras, of what nirvana is. And those are very positive statements. So the negative language continues, and we have the addition of now very positive language as well. Yes?

[26:46]

But was the Atman that they were seeking, was that really... The kind of small self that we associate. I'm sorry, which one? The Atman, the people before the Buddha that they were seeking. Is that really what we would associate with the small self? Or was it really Buddha nature that they were looking for? Well, the Buddhists would not say so. And they fear very strongly about that. But of course the word Atman, as you point out, means different things. But the Atman is a soul, which is one sense of what it meant. is definitely negated by the Buddhists and negated by the Buddhists here. The Atman as the conscious identity is a much bigger part of what the non-self doctrine is about in Mahayana circles. So the question then for you is, I would ask you, is what does Atman mean to the Theravadans? It's not so clear. Same kind of problem. You can take it in different directions. But at the very least, I think the problem is not so much that the... not only the Theravadan, but the pre-Mahyanic notion of anatman, it's not that it's incorrect, but that it's limited.

[27:54]

And I think what we're seeing here, this is just my interpretation, is a kind of attachment to that style of discourse. That anatman rhetoric has become too big, too strong, and it becomes a deity in and of itself. And that has to be deconstructed. And people suddenly are a slave to anatman. They're a slave to non-self. They're a slave to dukkha. They're a slave to the fact that this is a reality that we have to keep conscious all the time. And therefore we will succeed. And what the Buddha is saying is you only succeed until this point and you'll never get beyond that as long as you're a slave to that kind of rhetoric. In other words, you have attachments to that discourse that you're not even aware of. And that's what he's saying here. So, yeah. I think a lot of confusion about Atman is that in the early times, like in the Upanishads, there are different ideas about what Atman actually means. They couldn't be like Atman of the eye or something. So there are many different ideas at that time. Absolutely.

[28:56]

And to be fair, everyone who wants to talk about Atman, assert an Atman, or deny an Atman, uses Atman in the way that is convenient to them. whatever their particular concern is, obviously. You're seeing here that we still don't really know how this sutra is defining Atman. But the rhetoric here is more about self and non-self. And I guess another thing I want to say is that this kind of critical discourse that's very much characteristic of this sutra is not only about Atman, It's about emptiness. It's about Buddhism as a whole. It's about what people think Buddha is. It's about what people think Buddhism is. It's about what people think Sangha is. What people think the refuge is. We'll read a section in a second about what you think the three refuges are and how you think that each refuge has sort of its own identity. But what the Buddha is saying is I'm giving you a different perspective. Essentially what he's providing is what I would call the nirvanic perspective. And there, this Buddha Dharma Sangha means something different.

[30:00]

It is still the same Buddha Dharma Sangha. But it has another dimension to it that he wants people to see. What dimension is that? That's the nirvanic dimension to it. People don't necessarily associate nirvana with the Sangha, for example. Like the Dharma leads to nirvana, right? But the Buddha is saying, in fact, there's another way to think about it. So why don't we look at that? 235... Yeah, let's see how this goes. All right, new reader. All right, same reader, whatever. Yeah, so by the way, the names of the Tathagada. All right, wait a minute. Let me do a little more talking before we start reading. So what I wanted to say that I wrote up here earlier... This is part of the conclusion. We're going to see this here.

[31:01]

Maybe there's a healthy sense. So one of the things that makes Buddha nature complex is why the Chinese translator chose this term, Buddha nature, bullshit. Buddha nature, it's interesting, there was a talk at Berkeley recently about David Germano, who teaches Tibetan Buddhism in Virginia, and he was talking about Buddha nature, and he only does Vajrayana. And so after the talk, I went up to him and I said, do the Tibetans use the term Buddha nature? Because I thought that's a Chinese in Medji. So he says, oh no, no, it's Buddha Datu. I said, well, why do you call it Buddha nature? He says, well, that's what it is in English. So, what has happened is, the Chinese translator who chose to translate Buddha Datu, and Datu means relic. Here, Datu means relic. But the translator decided he liked Buddha nature. And when the Buddha word Buddha nature hit English, and I don't know when that was, suddenly, think about it, Human nature, Buddha nature, oh yeah, I can get that, okay?

[32:02]

You know, it's so immediately graspable as a concept, right, that that really stuck. And so now we are stuck with this word, right or wrong, okay? And if we go to the Chinese, you know, where most of this literature at this point coming into English comes from, then yes, it looks like Buddha nature, that's fine, okay. But in fact, it's either Buddhagotra or Buddhadatu. There's buddhatva, I've seen as well, which would be something like buddhaness, But that's a very rare term. Actually, Buddha Dhatu is more common. So let's talk about the word Dhatu for a second. It's a Sanskrit word that means sacred location or sacred space. Like Pada Nirvana or Mahapada Nirvana Dhatu refers to the cremation site of the Shakyamuni himself. Pada Nirvana, remember I told you yesterday, means death. Pada Nirvana Dhatu is the cremation place. That is where he's cremated the relics, everything. It's a sacred location. Dhatu also can just mean region. It's a complex word.

[33:02]

Also, Dhatu you'll see in Abhidharma treatises in the analysis of perception. It's kind of a perceptual space as a Dhatu. And we have Loka Dhatu. Loka means world. So a Loka Dhatu is a world where a Buddha lives, like a Buddha Kshetra. There's another name for that in Sanskrit. Most of you know about the Pure Land faith with Amida or Amitava. Amitayas, that's called a Loka Dhatu. So what is that? Local just means world, but by adding datu to it, we imply a kind of sacred dimension to it. So, what does it mean to say that the Buddha nature is in fact a Buddha relic? So let's think about relics a little bit. There's a hand up. Let me just stretch it. Okay. So, this is my little cheat sheet here. Relic is compacted sacred space. I don't know how to explain, I don't know how you all think about relics. And relics is not a big part of American religion, but it's a big part of European religion and a big part of Buddhist religion, okay? And so what are relics?

[34:03]

If you look at the history of Europe, you can see very clearly some countries in Europe were nuts for relics, like France or Ireland. Some countries in Europe don't have relics. So there's something about relic worship that's very appealing in certain cultures. And I have a friend who taught French history in Michigan, and he Retired in Berkeley, he told me that during the Middle Ages in France, they had an industry, cutting up dog bones, putting them in boxes and sending them to Ireland throughout Europe, saying these were the relics of saints, right? Because it was such a big business, right? So a relic is a physical, right? A physical piece of something sacred and allows you to feel a sense that there's a physical presence, right? But it is, of course, a virtual presence. We have that word today that helps us a lot. In any case, maybe relic presents or something, you know, that's the way they would say it at that time. So what is a Buddha relic? Okay, well, we know in the early, and again, this is where this Mahayana version of the Mahapanirvana Sutra incorporates mirrors and is conscious of the original Mahapanirvana Sutra that's not Mahayana, in which the Buddha is cremated, and the relics that remain, how they're distributed is a big deal.

[35:14]

People almost go to war over the relics of the Buddha after he's cremated. Okay. But now, what the Buddha is saying is, yes, the Buddha relics are real. Buddha relics incorporate the sacred. Buddha relics are powerful. Because at the time the sutra was written, we know there's a massive cult of people going to stupas to worship relics. The Buddha wants to say, and their Buddha nature, however, is universal. That means you are included in this. This is the nirvana perspective that is shocking and unexpected. So, that's what I think is... going on there. Virtual relic in here in the body. Okay, so let's read this section. Okay, sorry. Oh yeah, one more thing. Sorry, I apologize. Look at the title of the chapter, The Nature of the Tathagata. So this actually says Tathagata nature, Buddha nature. Anytime you see the word Buddha nature, you can also read it as the nature of Buddhas.

[36:16]

Buddha nature or the nature of Buddhas. When you think of Buddha nature, you think of a thing. When you think of the nature of Buddhism, you think of an abstract principle, right? But in fact, it's the same thing, okay? That's what also makes us unclear. But that's the way the Chinese works, and I think it's intentionally done that way, so you can have both dimensions happening at the same time. You just got to expand your brain a little bit, okay? All right, go ahead. Who's reading? Go ahead. I'm going to send it. Good man, the well-balanced sutras are like ambrosia of immortality. Amrita? Amrita. The well-balanced sutra is another name for Mahayana sutras. Are like the ambrosia of immortality, but they are also like poisonous medicine. The Bodhisattva Kajapa then addressed the Buddha. What would cause the Tathagata to say that the... Say that the well-balanced sutras are like the ambrosia of immortality, but also like a poisonous medicine.

[37:18]

The Buddha said, Good man, do you now want to know the true meaning of the Tathagata hidden treasury? In other words, the Tathagata Karaba. The Zyapa said, Yes, I do. I truly want to know the meaning of the Tathagata hidden treasury. Then the World Honored One explained into it, It may be that taking the ambrosia of immortality injures a person's life if he dies early. It may be that taking the ambrosia of immortality enhances a person's life that he lives longer. It may be that he can poison his life, or conditions or such that have taken poison for his death. The ambrosia of immortality, that is unimpeded wisdom, refers to the Mahayana scriptures. Yet these Mahayana scriptures are also called a mixing of poison and medicine. Like butter, the cream on the surface of clarified butter and granulated honey, when digested they are medicine, when not digested they are poisonous. The well-balanced sutras are just like this. For the wise, they are the ambrosia of immortality. For the foolish, who do not understand for the nature, when taken, they become poisoned.

[38:23]

For Sravakas and Pratikyabhutas, the Mahayana is the ambrosia of the mortality. Just like among all flour... Flavors. Flavors, excuse me. Milk comfort. Thus, those who make tenuous effort by means of the Mahayana can indeed reach nirvana. becoming elephant kings among men. Living beings that understand Buddha-nature, just like you, Kasyapa, will know the taste of the unsurpassed ambrota of immortality that is never born and never died. Kasyapa, for now you are skillful in discriminating three objects of refuge, but the nature of this triple refuge is just the nature of self. When someone critically observed that self-nature contains Buddha-nature, you will know that a person such as that is able to enter this hidden treasure. One who understands self and what pertains to self has already passed beyond this world. The nature of the three jewels that are the Buddha's dharma is to be honored above all else.

[39:23]

Like these verses, I have expounded. The meaning of their nature is thus. At that point, Kasyapastu spoke up and uttered these verses. Now I completely do not understand. I love this. This is like humor, you know? Now I'm completely confused, right? Okay, all right. The principle of taking refuge in the Three Jewels. How should one seek that place of unsurpassed fearlessness? I do not understand the principle of taking refuge in the Three Jewels. How does one do not himself? How does taking refuge in the Buddha bring one consolation? Why, in taking refuge in the Dharma, does one only request explanations for oneself? Why do some attain freedom while others do not? Why does taking refuge in the Sangha lead to gaining the greatest benefit? How do you truly explain the path to the attainment of Buddhahood in the future? If one will not attain this in the future, then why take refuge in the Three Jewels now?

[40:24]

At this point I have no foreknowledge of the secrets for practicing the refuges. What idea can one entertain about childbirth without ever being pregnant? There must be a presence in the womb before we say that a woman is with child. The child, if it is in the womb, will definitely be born before long. This sense of how we speak of a child before its birth is how karma seems to living beings. As the Buddha has explained, fools cannot understand. And because of their non-understanding, they transmigrate through samsara into hell. The upasaka... Okay, an upasaka is a Buddhist layman. Name only. Say, an Impasaka name only is someone who is a lay Buddhist, but is not actually living the proper lay Buddhist life. Sorry, go ahead. Impasaka does not understand the true meaning of the teachings, but only seeks ever more extensive discriminations to eliminate the web of uncertainty surrounding the self.

[41:27]

But the great wisdom of the Tathagata only pities such discriminations. I thus implore you to explain the hidden treasury of the Tathagata Garbha. Great. Okay. So that wasn't confusing enough. Now, any questions about that? And then we'll jump to a little more explanation. So we have the hint now of what's coming, okay, about the relationship between the three refuges. So I was very impressed with the Dharam, Sanadam, Gachami, and Zendo last night. I don't know why you do it in Pali, but in any case, this is something, okay, this is in sense... Speaking to that, okay? So let's jump to the next page. Okay. And so the sort of second paragraph. Then the Buddha said to the Bodhisattva, Kasyapa. So by the way, who's Kasyapa? Kasyapa is a person who is an interlocutor during most of the Sutra, and he is a layman.

[42:29]

That's what's also very interesting about this text. This text specifically... The Buddha rarely speaks to the big Jews. He speaks to a lay audience. He speaks to an audience including lay people and non-lay people. And that's why he's talking about upasakas here. And Kajapa comes to him as an upasaka. He's an educated, sincere lay person who has very advanced knowledge and questions the Buddha in great detail and provides, of course, the questions for which the Buddha can, in answering, provide his teaching. But I think that's another part of the sutra is that the lay monastic distinction here is blurred. It's blurred intentionally. So that's part of the story behind this too. Although it's never stated as such. This is something you have to infer from how the discourse is constructed. Okay, so there's a typo here. And the second line we have in the Mahayana twice. Please don't read that twice because I'm embarrassed enough when I found it. All right, so let's go. Who's reading next? Give it to somebody.

[43:34]

Good, good. Okay. So on the right side, 239. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't have my... Sorry. It happens. I'll lend you mine. Then the Buddha said to the Bodhisattva Keshava. Then the Buddha said to the Bodhisattva Keshava, Good man, now you should not distinguish among the three jewels as Shravakas and ordinary people do. In the Mahayana... There is nothing that marks the three refuges as separate. Why do I say this? Because the Dharma and the Sangha exist within the Buddha nature. That's a great line. The Dharma and the Sangha exist within the Buddha nature. That's already kind of shocking. That's not what you expect the Buddha nature to be doing, right? All right, keep going. It was in order to ferry Shravakas and ordinary people to the other shore that I separately expounded different marks for each of the three refuges. Good man, if you want to follow a Dharma that accords with worldly custom, then it makes sense to distinguish the existence of three separate refuges.

[44:38]

But good man, a Bodhisattva would do better to consider things in this way. Now with this body I take refuge in the Buddha. But if it were in this very body that I attained Buddhahood, then after becoming a Buddha I would no longer pay reverence to, make obeisance to, or make offerings to the world-honored ones. Why is this? because all Buddhas are equal, equally the object of refuge for living beings. If someone wants to pay their respects to relics of the Dharma body, they should worship the reliquaries of Buddhas. Why? This comes from the desire to save living beings, but by enabling living beings to put forth the idea of a reliquary within their own body, and to then worship and make offerings to it. In this way, living beings can take their personal Dharma body as a place of refuge. Living beings at some point all rely on untrue or fraudulent dharmas. For them, I will, in stages, endeavor to expound the true dharma.

[45:42]

In addition, some take refuge in fraudulent sanghas. For them, I will endeavor to be a place of the true sangha. And when there are those who distinguish three different forms of refuge, I will endeavor to be a single place of refuge for them, devoid of that tripartite distinction. I will become the eyes for those who are blind, and I will also become a true place of refuge for Shravakas and Praetika Buddhas. Okay, thanks. Now, this whole statement is, in fact, what the Buddha is suggesting people recite as their own kind of commitment, a kind of bodhicitta resolution that I resolve to attain Buddhahood in this way. And that's what that thing is that we just read. You can't see the book, but that's actually in quotes, okay. Okay, questions about that? Good. All right. So this is where we have the very clear statement that if you want to pay homage to the Buddhas, you should pay homage to the Buddha relic inside yourself and regard your body as a reliquary of the Buddha relic, which is what?

[46:45]

The Buddha nature. Okay. So. Yes. So there's a line. Anyway, it says, in this life saved the body, which is the fruit of many lives. Is that related? Sure, I'm sure that's related. It always seemed very mysterious, because usually the teachings seem to be to kind of forget the body. Or dismiss the body, right. Or drop the body. Or drop the body, exactly. There's a lot of negative language in the sutras about the body as a kind of impediment, right? As a source of suffering. But here we have the body as a reliquary, as a sacred container, right? of the Buddha nature. So it's very interesting in Chinese, the term that's used, well, those of you who know Chinese, maybe you want to learn Chinese, I don't know, anyway, this occurs a lot, okay, in the text, and this means body, but this also means self, okay, so I try not to translate it to self because we have this other problem with self and not self. But when the Buddha says the Buddha nature or the body is a reliquary of the Buddha relic, okay, this is what he's talking about.

[47:52]

Now, does he mean that it's within yourself or does he mean it's within your body? It's unclear. You could take it in either ways, either way, or you could take it in both ways. Both things happening simultaneously. So I think we'll also see if we get time to read the fact that when you come into existence, you have the five skandhas, the five aggregates contained within them. is the Tathagatagarbha, is the Buddha nature. So, in other words, the relic is within the aggregus. Okay, let's keep reading. Good man, this is akin to a person facing imminent battle whose state of mind is dominated by the thought I am the person in front here. All the soldiers are depending entirely upon me. This is also like a prince who ruminates. I will tame the other princes, continuing the work of great kings and hegemons, obtaining freedom and showing the other princes where their refuge lies.

[49:00]

Thus, a bodhisattva should never give rise to thoughts of inferiority, just as kings, princes, or ministers cannot afford to do so. Good man, in much the same way a bodhisattva Mahasattva also ruminates, how is it that these three things in myself are one in essence? Good man, what am I revealing now is that those three things are just nirvana itself. The Tathagata is called the unsurpassed worthy. Like the head that sits atop a person's body, rather than at the trunk or limbs, the Buddha sits at the top of the triple refuge, rather than the Dharma or the Sangha. For the purpose of spiritually transforming worlds, he manifests in different forms at different times, becoming like their scaffolding. Therefore, you need not accept the objects of refuge as something discriminated into three forms, as is currently understood by ordinary, dull-witted people. In the Mahayana, be ardent, be resolute, like a powerful sword.

[50:07]

The Bodhisattva... All right, wait, questions. Are we okay? Okay, let's charge ahead. Arjun, yes. The Bodhisattva Kasyapa then addressed the Buddha. Well-honored one, I ask out of appreciation, not because I do not understand. As someone with the Bodhisattva's seriousness of purpose, I wish to ask about the ground of what is pure and undefiled. For the sake of the Bodhisattvas, I would like to move the Tathagata... to delineate and expand on these astonishing things in your exalted presentation of Mahayana Well-Balanced Sutras. The Thakata's great compassion has already been expounded so beautifully that I know I dwell within it. Ground of purity for the Bodhisattva of which I speak is none other than this very Mahaparinirvana Sutra that you so eloquently expound. Well, an honored one, henceforth I will teach other living beings about the hidden Pythagatagarbha in some detail.

[51:08]

I will also attest to the true basis of the Triple Refuge. Anyone who can believe in this Mahapare Nirvana Sutra will be able to recognize quite naturally the ground of the Triple Refuge. Why is this so? So this exalting the sutra is typical of Mahayana sutras. They all do the same thing. Lotus Sutra does exactly the same thing. In some sense, the relationship between this sutra and the Lotus Sutra is a very complicated topic, but clearly the same thing. I am the Mahayana. Have refuge, believe in me. This is what the sutra is, as if the sutra is human, has a human voice. And this, of course, reflects that we had a very strong cult of the book at this time. The sutra reproduced, then is put on the altar. And then people then do homage to the sutra, just as if they do homage to the Buddha. And so here again, it's a statement of the kind of unity of the three jewels.

[52:09]

the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. But what's important here is that the Sangha itself is raised to the same level of authority as the Buddha, as the Dharma. That these things should not be separated. And that they are eternal. So even in their present, there's a permanence because they are nirvanic in their nature. Because the Buddha nature pervades them, or as we said before, they're all contained within the Buddha nature itself. Even if Buddhism... were to disappear from the world, as we talked about last time, which was predicted, these things continue. Why do they continue? It's just like a relic. Oh, where is it? My virtual sacred locale. What is it about relics? They don't degrade, okay? Buddhism is predicted to degrade, okay? History is an inevitable degrading feature. Deterioration of the Buddha Dharma is what is to be expected. It can only be minimized, but it's going to happen. But a relic, If you think about it, it transcends time.

[53:12]

So that's another reason to talk about Buddha nature as a relic. It's something that can withstand the test of time. So even if the Sanghas as we know them disappear, even if all the Buddhist books are gone, still, the Buddha nature persists. It persists not as a physical thing, but it persists as the Buddha nature that is within living beings, whether it's realized or not. So that's this extreme statement of hope that comes out of the sutra. Yeah? It also occurs to me that this relic, it's kind of a remembrance that has a connection to the translation of sati as something to do with remembering. Remembering some quality. Oh, you're saying sati smirti, yeah, sati and pali. That's right. Meaning of both mindfulness and also remembrance. Absolutely, very good. Okay. Okay. Please ask questions now. I feel some hesitation when I hear the argument of skillful means because to me it sounds like a blank check.

[54:18]

We could put anything in the mouth of the Buddha and say, oh I just taught this before and now I'm teaching this because it's skillful means and it makes me question the credibility. As opposed to what? As opposed to what is not put in the mouth of Buddha So if this is a blank check, is there another form of Buddhist sutra that's not produced in a way that doesn't offend you in that way? I mean, can you point to another sutra that somehow doesn't... Oh, no, I took into your argument yesterday. All of them are... They're all products of history. This is all we have. And so is the Bible, by the way. Old and New Testament. We don't know what Jesus said. We know what people, two generations later, recorded what Jesus said. Gospel of John, John didn't even meet Jesus. Okay, go ahead. That only furthers the sense of doubt. That's right. So you should have doubt. So you're raising the question about scriptures in general, Buddhist scriptures in general? Okay. Yeah, we talked about this a little bit yesterday.

[55:19]

I can't remember how I responded to this yesterday, but all I can say today is that as far as I feel, as far as those of us who study Buddhism, as a profession, you might say. And those of us who do this full-time, this is what we have. Now, if you require some kind of quantitative evidence, like some empirical formula, right, for measuring gravity, you're not going to get it in any religion. It requires some kind of creative, imaginative, almost mythical thinking. And there has to be some faith here. Now, what is the faith based on? That can be determined in various different ways. When the sutra says, you should believe in me, or the Buddha says believe in me as Jesus says believe in me, it's not a whole lot different in that sense. It's up to you to determine, do you see something in this tradition that resonates with you as real, as genuine? And that, as far as I know, is up to you. I don't know what we can do beyond that.

[56:20]

As far as I'm concerned, there's plenty of evidence that whatever there was in the beginning continues. And to say that the sanghas are just as permanent, just as nirvanic, just as buddhanaturic as the Buddha and the Dharma is a very positive statement of affirmation, okay? Now, but the Buddha, as soon as he says that, he says there are also false sanghas, right? So, you know, in other words, there's no easy solution here. And if you want something scientific, you're going to have a hard time. Empirical, I should use that word, not scientific, yeah. Okay. Whitman said it. Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. I mean, that's what we talked about yesterday. That's right. That's right. I mean, there's a lot of irrationality and there's a lot of things that looked on the surface. Well, why should I accept that? And your argument is very, very good. I'm glad you said it in a way because I'm sure it goes through everybody's mind. Yeah. Buddha said, be a lamp unto yourself. That's right. Trust your own practice. That's right. And so what he's saying here again, trust your own practice because even if the Sangha falls apart,

[57:22]

even if the religion seems to disappear, you have the Buddha nature inside you. In other words, there is a kind of spark of nirvana in you. Whether you can see it or not, it's a kind of personal problem, right? So if that is too fantastic, right, if that is too fantastic, then you simply can't be religious. It seems to me that people that are drawn to religion are people that say, well, I'm not sure, but I feel something, okay? So what we didn't read here, by the way, just before this section is various parables or analogies of people who see things in dim light, okay? Like there's a story about someone looks up and sees a flock of geese flying by, and he says, oh, look, I just saw a flock of geese, and his friend said, are you sure there were geese? And he said, well, I saw something flying by, you know, and I think there were geese, you know what I'm saying? So what did you see? You saw traces of wings flapping, okay? And in your mind, you associate them with what you think a goose looks like, and maybe that's all you have, you know? So, you know... Also, it brings up the nature of faith and what is the foundation of faith?

[58:29]

In fact, the only foundation of faith is faith itself. Oh, that's right. We found our faith on faith of others. That's right. We found our faith on empirical data or on facts. That's right. We're stories, but these stories are only the stories of faith of others. And there have to be others that, like what they call in central, the Kalyana Mitra, the kind of spiritually authentic people, right? If you can find faith in people you don't have much faith in, right, as individuals, and that's not going to move you. But when you have, when you see faith in people who do, are authentic, are genuine, right, and that moves you, then we have precisely that phenomenon going. Then your faith will be based on their faith. Yeah. It also seems to be just undermining the whole conceptual notion. It's like setting it up, shooting it down, setting it up, shooting it down. That's right. Concepts. Exactly. And kind of pointing to something deeper with nothing to attain.

[59:30]

Exactly. There's nothing there. That's right. There's nothing there. That's right. And so later on we didn't get to read it, but there's a very strong assertion about the importance of emptiness and understanding emptiness, but then that has to be deconstructed as well. This sutra, just like the Prajnapada Mita, wants to take you to a place where literally you have no concepts to stand on. The only concept you have, what the sutra finally says to have faith in this reality, this is what Buddha nature is. But perhaps you haven't seen it. Perhaps you have an inkling that it might be there. And that's what you're left with. In the end, you have faith. in faith. I mean, I don't think we can go beyond that, and that's the purpose of practice, I suppose, to give you some sense of that this, just get a taste or a smell or a whiff or something. And I think that's also the purpose of a Sangha. That's the purpose of a community, in any religious community.

[60:31]

I mean, the Dharma is embodied in the Sangha, right? And that's the Sangha's duty, not only to maintain it, but to understand it, to have faith in it, and to be witnesses, in a sense, of that faith, right, so that others can gain entry to it. Yeah. That second kanji, Raku, is in the front of the dining room. Kaz made these two calligraphies for the dining room. Wonderful. Enjoyment and together. There you go. So we should enjoy our enlightenment together. Very good. Very good. I think the other thing, just finally, I guess another point that we're out of time, but you know, I would like to stay in the discussion yesterday after the lecture. the notion of subjectivity came up. And you see this kind of coalescing of things here. The three refuges should not be understood as separate things. It's one refuge. This is what the Buddha wants you to do. The Buddha does not want you to discriminate. And again, we just read about the dull-witted people continually look for more discriminations as if somehow that's going to bring them to a more clear understanding of truth, when in fact...

[61:39]

What he's saying is the basis of truth is a kind of unanimity. It's a kind of commonality. It's not discriminatory. And so this is also, I think, a very important part of this discourse. It's this belief that everybody has Buddha nature. When people ask the Buddha, is it the same or is it different in each person, the Buddha says, it is the same. but it also is individually understood. In other words, your Buddha nature is understood by you in the context of your life, but it is the same Buddha nature. And that's why, as we just read, I will become a Buddha, and when I do, I will stop making obeisances to Buddhas, because I am a Buddha, and all Buddhas are equal. A very strong statement of confidence, right? That's a commonality that's also a very big part of this discourse, and I think one of the most attractive things about it as well. Okay, thanks a lot. 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.

[62:44]

Your financial support helps us to continue to offer the Dharma. For more information, visit SSCC.org and click giving.

[62:54]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_89.56