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. So this is the sequel to the epic... Buddha Nature presentation. Sequel is often not as good as the first version, but let's see. First of all, just to mention two great benefits of contemplating and opening to Buddha Nature. Even we could say, Buddha nature is a cure for two ailments.

[01:03]

It could be. One is discouragement about practice. So if we feel like, you know, we can't really do this practice, we're not making any progress, we're really maybe not cut out for this practice. If we remember that all beings have Buddha nature, or our Buddha nature, are endowed with this empty, clear, compassionate awareness, the more we can trust that, the less discouraged we can be. So it helps to understand Buddha nature more, so that's why we're talking about it, and you can continue studying it for the rest of your life, and see if it encourages your practice. The more we trust Buddha Nature, the more we feel like this is really possible.

[02:12]

No matter who we are, what our karmic obscurations might be, Buddha Nature is here all the time, working for us on our behalf. and wanting us to open to it and be free. Bodhi nature can cure discouragement. It can also cure the tendency to violate one of our bodhisattva precepts of praising self and belittling others. We have that Bodhisattva precept. But when you really open to Buddha nature, it's by definition, it's the same in all beings. So if we might even feel like, whether or not we're praising ourselves, but we might even feel like, well, I have some, you know, real good Buddha nature going, but these other beings don't.

[03:15]

That's totally not in accord with the teaching of Buddha nature. All beings equally, completely equally, by definition, share this completely clear, bright, unhindered, selfless, compassionate, empty of all afflictions, Buddha nature. So don't belittle others because they have this potential. Yes? They would go for that too, yeah. belittling self and praising others, does it cure that? Yes, it cures that too. Because all beings equally have Buddha nature. So that's the realm in which there's no distinction between self and other. So, and if you have problems with either yourself, I mean the first was more about problems with yourself, being discouraged with your own practice.

[04:23]

The second is more about being discouraged about other people's practice. And so if you feel like you really can't see like any potential in some person, like they're really obscured, all you can see is their obscurations. You can actually, you have to kind of imagine this because you can't see Buddha nature like just... in such a straightforward, direct way, but by trusting it, by opening to it, by understanding these teachings more and more, we can try on that perspective of, you know, in the middle of an argument or something, we can maybe just open to that person's Buddha nature. We might also call this, like, If we talked about it as a practice, you could say the practice of pure perception, which is kind of like almost a visualization or imagination, but it's opening to this perceiving everybody purely as who they really are, which is their Buddha nature, beneath all the obscurations of our own version of them.

[05:41]

their own emanation of obscurations. Pure perception. And if we extend Buddha nature to not just sentient beings, but to all things, which we'll maybe get into this discussion today, then this pure perception can be extended to not just sentient beings, but the whole world around us, being like a pure land of completely undefiled and perfected Buddha land, you know, temporarily vowed by various obscurations. So to follow up a little bit on yesterday's discussion too, we talked about one of the more controversial things that I brought up was that for the full revelation of Buddha nature, ascension being must be removed. which is a kind of offensive sounding teaching.

[06:47]

And someone even said, well, that's, I don't know about that. That sounds like you could get into some kind of extreme practices if you misunderstand this, you know, removing a sentient being. Like you might try to like surgically remove a sentient being from the Buddha nature. That's not what it means. That would be an extreme practice. So relinquish is another word. Relinquish the sentient being. Even that might sound pretty radical. But this is, according to this one, there's very many different versions of the relationship between Buddhas and sentient beings and Buddha nature and sentient beings and Buddha nature and Buddhas. All this is a very dynamic conversation since the time of Buddha. presented in many different ways. But one of these ways is that Buddha nature is already always imminent, all-pervading, and perfectly undefiled, and yet it's blocked from our appreciating it by these obscurations.

[08:02]

So one definition of the obscurations that block it is sentient beings. Sentient beings are the obscuration. So that's what's relinquished. And that does sound kind of radical, but I think we can also talk about that in ways that are maybe more familiar to us. Like if we say the sentient being is the person we think we are right now. In fact, that is. Like when we look at other sentient beings, it's the person we think they are. When we think of ourselves as a sentient being, it's... we think of ourself in a certain way as a sentient being. That kind of version of ourself is the obscuration that can be relinquished to reveal the already present Buddha nature. Does that make sense? That's less offensive sounding, don't you think? Relinquishing the one we think we are.

[09:06]

So at Dozen we often talk about dropping off body and mind, which also is a lot like relinquishing ascension being. Isn't ascension being just body and mind? So whatever we might mean by dropping off body and mind, I think not so different from removing or relinquishing ascension being in order to reveal the Buddha nature. Again, the image is like, I think, My current favorite image of this is like Buddha nature is like the vast Tassajara blue sky without any clouds, without any boundaries, just extending in all directions infinitely. And radiant light, the brightness and clarity of the summer sky completely empty of anything in it. And... coming along with these qualities, these Buddha qualities like infinite selfless compassion and love for all beings.

[10:09]

So that kind of sky is like Buddha nature and the sentient beings are like the clouds in the sky which is kind of reversed to how we often think of it as like Buddha nature is in the sentient being like all sentient beings have Buddha nature but this is more like Buddha nature has sentient beings You are not it. In truth, it is you. So we're like these little clouds, and from the cloud's perspective, when we're in the cloud, as the cloud, we can't see the sky. We're just immersed in the cloud. We're floating in the sky, but we can't see it. We can't appreciate it. We really don't even know it's there. And even, you know... Someone can tell us that we're floating in the sky, but often that doesn't really help. We have to contemplate and open and trust this more and more deeply. And from the sky's perspective, the clouds floating in actually don't obscure it.

[11:17]

So I think this is an important angle on this too. When we talk about removing sentient beings or removing the obscurations, that's from the point of view of sentient beings. From the Buddha's nature perspective, there are no obscurations. Like clouds don't hinder the sky in any way. But from the clouds perspective, to appreciate the vastness of the sky, it needs to be relinquished. And we talked about yesterday, like, you know, even if you, like, sometimes the clouds part just a little bit, there's a hole of blue sky, and that, that, that spot of sky is exactly the same as the whole vast sky. It's not like a kind of diminished version of it in any way. That's why this metaphor is very nice. Just to see like a little, a little tiny pinhole of blue sky is exactly the same nature as the entire sky after all clouds have gone.

[12:21]

But it's a, you know, it's It's not fully revealed. So I was thinking a little bit about different versions of practice, and we'll talk about Zen today. Yesterday's version was kind of the Indian presentation of classical Mahayana Indian versions of Buddha nature. So it would speak about Buddha nature teachings and Zen tradition. Just kind of playing with this a little bit, I thought about... you know, Rinzai and Soto Zen, and just my understanding of the difference between these approaches. Taking this image of, you know, where this cloud in the sky, maybe Rinzai Zen, which is kind of a forceful, vigorous kind of practice of trying to actually see nature.

[13:28]

See Buddha Nature. What is in Japanese is kensho. Ken means see and show means nature and refers to Buddha nature. So the realization that's emphasized in Rinzai Zen is seeing nature. And I think of like, you know, you're in a cloud, like punching a hole through the cloud. And for a second it parts and you see the blue sky. And then the cloud comes back together again. so you can actually see the sky through there momentarily if you punch it hard enough in a vigorous way. There's lots of punching in Rinzai Zen as I understand it. Soto Zen, which this is Tassajara, is an expression of Before the cloud, what would we, how would we practice if we're not going to punch through the cloud in order to see this little spot of blue sky?

[14:38]

Which, you know, from a certain perspective, it's like, well, is that really the important thing? Is to just see this little spot for a moment before the cloud comes back together? And is that as important as actually, because... If you punch through and you see that spot and then it comes back together, there is value in that for sure, but you're still living as the cloud, right? So another maybe Soto Zen approach would be like you're just, you're the cloud and you're just opening more and more to this trust, deep, sometimes we might say faith. I like the word trust. Trusting. that you are floating in the midst of this vast, blue, uh, clear, awake, compassionate sky. And, uh, by trusting this more and more deeply, it's like the cloud can start to actually dissolve, rather than punching a hole through it, it's just kind of like turning more and more wispy, uh, clouds, so you kind of like, the sky is maybe

[15:54]

The blue skies may be coming through in this blurry way, through the wispy cloud, but you're not so concerned about punching a hole to get a really clear view because you trust it so deeply, what you're floating in. And then maybe at some point, you know, there's not even a cloud there, but you're not even concerned of whether you're a cloud or the sky at that point. This is playing with images. Also about the relinquishment or removal of the obscurations or the removal of sentient beings to reveal Buddha nature. Again, that's from the perspective of a sentient being. I think a really good metaphor here that maybe you've heard this before but again this is another one of my favorite metaphors is the rope and the snake.

[17:05]

You know this one classic Buddhist image of like you're looking in the dark at a rope on the, I mean at a snake on the ground and you jump back in fear because you see the snake but then it's not moving you know you go closer and you look and you see that actually it's not a snake it's just a rope but you couldn't see in the dark and at the time of directly you know realizing that it's not a snake it's a rope that your fear immediately dissipates and you can even laugh at yourself for being afraid of a snake I think it's a great metaphor because you don't actually have to remove the snake from the garden. It doesn't get removed, right? It's just that you look more closely and you see that it's actually not a snake and it never was a snake.

[18:08]

It's just a rope. So we can relate this to this issue of removing obscurations that in a way that's That's like from the perspective of ascension being, we can talk about relinquishing, letting go of, removing obscurations. And again, for people that weren't here yesterday, the main obscuration that we sometimes call ascension being is just dualistic thought. And then that, you know, reified, conceptual, splitting thought that's... divides experience into subject and object. That's the basic obscuration that blocks Buddha nature. And that's what we could call sentient beings dualistic thought. It's kind of funny, but we could do that. So, in a way, you could say, if the obscuration is dualistic thought, do we have to actually...

[19:12]

remove or even relinquish or even let go of dualistic thought or to just look closely and see that there actually isn't dualistic thought there never really was dualistic thought it's an illusion that appears to be something we call dualistic thought but that's not actually what it is when we look closer we could even go so far as to say what it actually is guess what it actually is Any guesses? Yes! Buddha nature, right? That's what it actually is. Amazing. It's like what appears to be dualistic thought is actually Buddha nature. So, therefore, from the perspective of Buddha nature, nothing is relinquished. So that's a little bit of follow-up on yesterday.

[20:17]

Now to venture into the world of Zen presentation of Buddha Nature, I think actually is much more difficult, I'm sorry, to say. I really appreciate the Indian presentations because they're very straightforward and even though I might have mentioned yesterday we talked about these three turnings of the Dharma wheel. The first and second turning you can actually logically understand. There's logical reasoning to prove the Dharma of the first turning of the wheel and the second turning. Emptiness can actually be conceptually reasoned to be the case. the middle way reasoning of Nagarjuna and so on. It's not the final end by any means, but very helpful to use conceptual, logical analysis to approach, to kind of like basically deeply pull out the ground of the conceptual mind by using conceptual thinking.

[21:37]

And then there's a non-conceptual realization that's beneath that, that we further can open to. But the third turning, actually, there's a little bit of reasoning around it that can be done, but it's traditionally said that actually it doesn't have this very straightforward logical reasonings and proofs. There are some proofs for Buddha nature, but actually it's inconceivable. It's kind of beyond the realm of logic, the whole turning of the third turning of the Dharma wheel of Buddha nature. So even the classical Indian presentation says it's inconceivable. So now Zen is really going to play with this. And when I start looking into particularly Dogen's take on Buddha nature, which often is completely contradictory to everything that was said yesterday, and the Indian teachings of Buddha nature I feel like they come together in the sense that the classical presentation is more like from the point of view of sentient beings so it's very helpful because we're sentient beings so it's good to have some teachings for us I feel like Dogen's talking about it from the point of view of Buddha nature so it's hard to you know grok it

[23:04]

except by just really opening to Buddha-nature and then hearing the words from Buddha-nature. But somebody said yesterday, I think that maybe Kastanarashi said that Dogen doesn't use logical thought. I think you find in this Buddha-nature fascicle, Buddha has a very long essay called Buddha-nature, Dogen does. He goes through a very methodical approach but it's mixed in with, well, it's basically based on Zen stories, koans, about Buddha nature. So to start with, talking about Zen and Buddha nature, we have Bodhidharma, who, according to legend, brought the Lankavatara Sutra from India to China. That was like his thing. Maybe he didn't bring anything else, but... a robe and a bowl in the Lankavatara Sutra. This goes way back, so we don't know exactly really what happened, but that's the story of the first several generations of Chinese Zen.

[24:17]

Bodhidharma is the founder of Chinese Zen. Basically, this was their main teaching, was the Lankavatara Sutra, which I mentioned yesterday is considered a in the Buddha's third turning of the Dharma Wheel, and it teaches Buddha nature, also called Tathagatagarbha, the womb of the Tathagatas, or the heart of the Tathagatas, or Buddha. So, just a little bit, last little bit of Indian Buddha nature teaching from the Lankavatara Sutra, which is... Bodhidharma at the beginning of the sutra. Bodhidharma's favorite teaching. And he passed that on for several generations. And then I think Bodhidharma even predicted that it would, he said, after a few generations, people won't understand the sutra anymore and they'll just forget about it.

[25:21]

And it's kind of what happened until D.T. Suzuki translated it into English. Lankavatar means like the descent into Sri Lanka. So the Buddha taught this. The Buddha landed in Sri Lanka on Mount Malaya and taught this teaching, which is also a foundational sutra for the Yogacara school of Buddhism. So we also can say that early Chan, Zen in China, was really, more than anything else, emphasize these Yogachara, mind-only teachings and Buddha-nature teachings in the sutra. Some of you have spent some time studying the Sandhinirmojana Sutra, the Unlocking the Mysteries Sutra with Tenshin Roshi. And the Salankavatara is kind of like a commentary on that, or almost like it's like the cliff notes on that sutra, but it's more

[26:29]

The Sandi No Mochena never mentions Buddha nature, but this one does. So this is also a good place to point out the fact that when we start talking about Buddha nature, it starts to sound like it's like our true being, right? It's like who we really are. It's like the heart of the Tathagata, the heart of the Buddha, and we all have it. it starts to sound like our true self, something like that. And we could kind of say that. And there are, like the Paranirvana Sutra, which is another main source of Buddha nature teachings, says that actually, you know, remember in the first turning of the Dharma Wheel, Buddha taught impermanence, no self, no independently abiding self of a person. all conditioned, these are all conditioned things, are impermanent, unsatisfactory, not self, and sometimes it's even added in, they're impure, meaning like they're obscured by obscurations.

[27:43]

So those were like qualities that Buddha taught over and over again in his first turning. But the third turning turns those over and it says actually In terms of Buddha nature, Buddha nature is the opposite of these. It's permanent, not impermanent. It's permanent. It's not suffering, but it's bliss. It's not no self, but this is the most radical one. It is self. This is in the Maha Parinirvana Sutra of the Mahayana. And it is pure, not impure, like it's unobscured. It's permanent. It's blissful. It's self and pure. Really, that's as controversial as a sutra can get, a Buddhist sutra to say their self. I think it's even the term Atman that's refuted in the early teachings.

[28:45]

So they're equating Buddha nature with this true self. And by the way, those qualities, permanence, bliss, self, and purity. In Japanese, it's Jô Raku Ga Jô. So you could say that Enmejuku Kanan Gyo, one of the sutras that invokes Avalokiteshvara, is kind of like invoking Buddha nature. It's like that's kind of right out of the Paranirvana Sutra, that one-line phrase. It's a ten-line sutra, very short. But you could say, well, what's that got to do with Kansayan, Avalokitesvara? But you could say it has everything to do with her. She is a manifestation of Buddha nature. Buddha nature is infinite, great compassion. So... that line of the sutra just kind of celebrates that jo raku ga jo some people might say completely heretical teaching but it's a teaching of Buddha nature in this Mahayana sutras but in this sutra they're pointing out this issue that is this the self that the first turning talks about

[30:13]

So the Mahamati Bodhisattva Mahasattva said to the Blessed One, now the Blessed One makes mention of Tathagata Garba, the heart of the Tathagata, the Buddha heart, synonym for Buddha nature, in the sutras, and verily it is described by you, Blessed One, as by nature bright and pure, primarily undefiled nature, endowed with all marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being, like a gem, a jewel of great value, which is wrapped up in a dirty garment, enveloped in the garment of the skandhas, datus and ayatanas. We could just say it's wrapped up in the body and mind. So we could say we need to relinquish the skandhas, body and mind, the five skandhas, in order to reveal this gem within.

[31:19]

Sometimes we say it's within, it's wrapped up in this concealing body of five skandhas. Sometimes we say this body-mind is actually in it. It has no location, so it's not a matter of which is in which. Did I lose that place? So it's pure, clear, bright, and... We'll have to skip this because, did I take out the bookmark?

[32:24]

There it is. Enwrapped in this, you could say, a dirty garment. A just obscuring garment of body and mind. Soiled with the dirt of greed, hate, and delusion, and false imagination. While it's described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious and unchangeable, is this Tathagadagarbha taught by the Blessed One the same as this independent self taught by various philosophers in Buddha's time? The self as taught in the system of the philosophers is an eternal creator unconditioned, omnipresent, and imperishable.

[33:27]

So it sounds very much like Buddha nature, right? So he's questioning, isn't this the same thing as the self that Buddha's teaching is refuting? And the Blessed One said, no, Mahamati, this Tathagadagarbha is not the same as the self taught by these philosophers. For what the Tathagadas teach is Tathagadagarbha in the sense that it is emptiness, nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, unconditioned, and devoid of all self-will, self-power, and effort to realize it. The reason why the Tathagatas, the fully awakened ones, teach this teaching pointing to the Tathagatagarbha is to make sentient beings cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of no self and to have them realize the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.

[34:33]

So sometimes it's taught like that, that it's, some people might even say it's a provisional teaching. Really the ultimate teaching is that everything is completely empty, but that's so radical and people can't quite deal with that there isn't anything. We think there is. So they say, well, there isn't anything. It's vast emptiness, but it's Buddha nature. It's not just nothing at all. There's Buddha nature. So it's a little more easy to take than emptiness. So sometimes it's taught as provisional to just complete. non-applicative negation of emptiness and sometimes it's taught us actually Buddha nature is the definitive teaching that this non-applicative negation of emptiness is actually that's too narrow because there's this clear awareness this is not nothing obviously so

[35:46]

We have a collection of Zen stories, the Book of Serenity. There's quite a few stories about Buddha nature. The most classic one is about the dog. Probably most people have heard this. The usual, the common koan version is a monk asks Jaojo, does the dog have Buddha nature? And Jaojo says, no. And that's the end. Often in English, for some reason, they don't translate mu as no. So mu in Japanese or wu in Chinese. But it just means no. I don't know what that's about that has become this American custom to not translate that. Maybe because it's emphasized, well, it's not just a regular old no, but neither are any of those words regular old words.

[36:49]

I'm, you know, I haven't done Rinzai Zen Koan training, so maybe there's more to the story here, but Mu is, it's the same as the Heart Sutra. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue. Those are all Mu. Same character, Mu. It just means there isn't any, or no. Without. Without. No is nice because it's like Mu. It's like a one-word direct answer, and you can... you can say it like, Nooooooooooooooo! Instead of like, there isn't any. So no is very good in English, I think. And it's straightforward, cuts through everything. So often like the Mumon Khan collection, the story is just like that. Does the dog have Buddha nature? No. And that's the first koan in most koan training systems. So like, does a dog have blue nature?

[37:50]

No. Then a dog doesn't? No. You just, you know, whatever you think, no. But this is a kind of Soto Zen koan collection. And so we could say more grandmotherly, maybe. So there's a lot longer dialogue. It's not so pared down as just. No, period. Go home. So it's the same story, though. It's just the extended LP version. A monk asked Zhao Zhao, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Zhao Zhao said, yes. Yes. And the monk said, since it has, why is it then in this skin bag? like, if it has Buddha nature, why is it in this garment, this kind of like, you know, obscured garment, skin bag, right, is Zen a way of talking about this body, is a kind of skin bag filled with Buddha nature.

[39:09]

So why does Buddha nature bother, like, going into a skin bag? I think another translation is like, Why does it, like, push itself into a skin bag? It's kind of an interesting image. Buddha nature is not some thing, right? It's not really even in a skin bag, but this is talking. And can you believe this? He answers. He explains. He's like, well, then if it has Buddha nature, Yes, it has Buddha nature. Then why is it in the skin bag? Dja Dja says, because it knows, yet deliberately transgresses. Buddha nature is willing, Buddha nature is clear and knowing, and yet it's willing to go into a skin bag because it's infinitely compassionate.

[40:11]

It could even say maybe that... Buddha nature vows to enter skin bags for the benefit of all beings. I think this is a really beautiful teaching about Buddha nature and like the way we might often think of ascension being having Buddha nature. Again, does ascension being really have Buddha nature or is ascension being walking alongside Buddha nature and obscuring it and eventually sentient being is relinquished and just Buddha nature remains. So then another monk asked Jaojo, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? So this time Jaojo says no. And the monk says, well all sentient beings have Buddha nature. Doesn't all the sutras say that?

[41:14]

Why does the dog not have it? And Jaojo says, because he still has impulsive consciousness. So again, he kind of gives this kind of straightforward answer. It almost doesn't sound like a koan, almost more like a sutra. But as the commentary says, these answers are deeply profound to contemplate. And this is, I think, interesting that all sentient beings have Buddha nature. Why does a dog not have it? So this is if we talk about does it have it or not? We could say actually the dog itself doesn't have Buddha nature because the dog, yeah, Buddha nature has the dog, we could say, and the dog has this, you know, karmic consciousness nature. The dog just is an obscuration.

[42:18]

So it's not really that a dog has Buddha nature. So that's one kind of angle I might say. Actually, no, a dog doesn't have Buddha nature. So even if you take it as the straightforward Rinzai-style koan of does a dog have Buddha nature? No. I think one of the issues here, maybe that's not usually brought up in this koan, but is this whole issue about have. You know, what's the relationship between the dog and Buddha nature? You know, we shouldn't just take it as like, yeah, yeah, the sutras say all beings have Buddha nature. It's like, what does it have mean? And does a dog, even if they say all beings have Buddha nature, really, does a dog have Buddha nature? A dog has impulsive consciousness. So there's different perspectives Even to say all sentient beings have Buddha nature is a very dynamic statement.

[43:20]

So that's one story in here. There's another one. This one gets into, I think, some of how Zen starts to approach this distinction between the dualistic world and the non-dual world of Buddha nature starts to get broken down in the Zen tradition in the name of non-duality, it's not so appropriate to make distinctions between duality and non-duality. So that's why I think it gets even more radical and easy to take it in an overly simplified way. In this Lankavatara Sutra, it's one of the few places, I think, that equates Tathagadagarbha, or Buddha nature, with what we call the storehouse consciousness.

[44:27]

Most other sutras would say that actually the storehouse consciousness is like a storehouse of obscurations, and actually that needs to be relinquished to realize Tathagadagarbha. But the Lakavatara Sutra, which may be why Bodhidharma liked it, says that actually these two are like synonyms. That the storehouse of all like our karmic tendencies, that gives rise to all our experiences and registers all our experiences also in this very dynamic and inconceivable way. So it's like Buddha nature in that it's kind of like has no location. and it's inconceivable, but it's an unlocatable, inconceivable source of all kinds of karmic habits and tendencies and basically obscurations and dualistic thinking is all created by this storehouse consciousness, alaya, vijjnana.

[45:36]

But this sutra says this storehouse consciousness is the same as Tathagadagarbha. So that in itself shifts the whole way of thinking about it. And I think this koan story is coming from this more Lankavatara perspective. In fact, it quotes the Lankavatara Sutra in the commentary here. So the story is... This is case 93 in the Book of Serenity, Lutsu's not understanding. Jado's dog is case 18, if you want to look at it later. So, and you might not get this from Thomas Cleary's translation because it says, he uses this term, the mine of realization of lustness. And he really, he, you know, unlike people who don't like to translate mu into English, he likes to translate everything into English.

[46:37]

So that's his translation for Tathagata Garba. The mine of the realization of thusness. It's the Tathagata mine. M-I-N-E. Mine, like a coal mine. A gold mine, actually, we should probably say. The mine, again, this word Garba can mean like wound or mine or storehouse, actually, interestingly. It also means storehouse, but it's not used for storehouse consciousness. And in Chinese it also means storehouse or womb. It's the Zou of Shobogen Zou. The treasury, treasury it can mean, treasury or storehouse of true Dharma I, or Ji Zou Bodhisattva, or store, earth mine, earth womb. Bodhisattva, we sometimes say. But again, as I was saying yesterday, I think heart and various commentaries say that it's kind of a later derivation of Garba, but womb implies that there's something that's not quite developed, that needs to develop, and like seed, this kind of thing, is a little bit off because Buddha nature is fully developed always from the beginning.

[48:01]

It doesn't develop. It doesn't change. It's not like it's a little Buddha nature that becomes a big one. It's all pervading from the beginning of the universe, you could say, or at least the beginning of sentient beings. And it doesn't increase or decrease. It's not more in Buddhas and it's not less in sentient beings. It's just that sentient beings seem to have these obscurations that block the vision of this actually unobscured Buddha nature. There's a little aside about Garba. So, I'll say heart here. Or just Tathagata Garba. Lutsu asks Nantuan, the wish-fulfilling jewel people don't know. It's personally obtained from Tathagata Garba, or from the heart of the Tathagata. So that's a quote from a Zen poem.

[49:04]

He quotes his Zen poem, The Wish-Fulfilling Jewel. People don't know it, but it's personally obtained from this Tathagata heart. What is that heart? What is that mind or womb or heart of the Buddha? And Nantuan says, That in me which comes and goes with you is it. That in me, which comes and goes with you, is the Tathagata heart. So after looking at the Indian presentation, I thought, no, it's not about coming and going. Tathagata heart doesn't come and go, right? It's unconditioned, pure, unchanging, non-coming and going. So very nicely, then Luzi says, well, what about that which doesn't come and go?

[50:10]

And Nanquan says, it's also that heart. And then I was relieved at hearing that. But so it's saying that vast emptiness which doesn't come and go and doesn't change at all is the Sathagata heart, is Buddha nature. But also that in me which comes and goes with you is it. And that sounds to me more like the storehouse consciousness that's constantly arising and ceasing. It's impermanent and it's evolving, transforming constantly. It doesn't stay the same. So if we say that that which doesn't stay the same and the storehouse consciousness and that which stays the same, the Thakadagarbha, are the same thing. There's something very dynamic going on there. But that's the Lagavatar Sutra says this.

[51:12]

So, and this is kind of a Zen version of these two sides of Buddha nature. What is this Buddha nature? That in me which comes and goes with you is it. And I think that makes it much more accessible too because... That's all of this that's happening right now. All we're actually perceiving this, you know, like the air in this room is coming and going with me and you right now. So that's part of it. And all our ideas about ourselves and each other are arising and ceasing, coming and going together. It's like the world of interdependent arising. So I can say that that which is sometimes also equated with storehouse consciousness. Asanga, the exponent of storehouse consciousness, also defined it as dependent co-arising. So all these things, if we're starting to equate all these things, then we're saying dependent co-arising is vast emptiness united with clear, awake awareness.

[52:29]

Everything is included here. Everything and every non-thing is now included. But Buddha Nature, I trust, can be that big to include not only no thing, but all things. So, again, the wish-fulfilling jewel, people don't know it. It's personally obtained from Tathagata Garba. What is that Garba? That in me which comes and goes with you is it. What about that which doesn't come and go? It's also the garba, the nature. What is the, Lutsu has said, what is the jewel? The jewel that's personally obtained from the taga da garba? What is the jewel? Nanquan called him, Lutsu. Lutsu responded, yes. Nanquan said, yes. Go. You don't understand my words. So the jewel, the precious, wish-fulfilling jewel that comes forth as right now, all of us, each of us, is like that.

[53:48]

Like this. Jin. Jin. Jin. So that's, I know there's any story about Tataga de Garb. And then, you still have some time. I hesitate to impose Dogen on you all, but it must be done. So, this, It's said apparently that in modern Soto Zen tradition, there's three fascicles of the Shobo Genzo that are considered like the most important expositions of Dogen. Genjo Koan, which many people know, chanted in the Zendo sometimes even, maybe most well-known essay of Dogen.

[54:56]

Bendo Wa, which many people know, probably the second most well-known essay of Dogen, both, and interestingly, like the first two things basically that he ever wrote. It was all downhill from then. Those are considered like this overview, presentation of Dogen's understanding of Zen, and particularly Zazen, and understanding of reality. Genjo Koan, Bendo Wa, actualizing the fundamental point. the wholehearted way. And Bhū Shō, Buddha Nature, which came a few years later. But that's interesting, because we rarely study this fascicle. Partly, I think, because it's much more difficult than the other two. And it's very long. It's the longest Shobo Genzo fascicle. Many, many, many stories he brings up. So a little bit from here.

[55:59]

Dogen starts quoting the Parinirvana Sutra. Shakyamuni Buddha said, All sentient beings, without exception, have Buddha nature. The Tathagata abides forever without change. And Dogen says, This is the lion's roar of our great teacher, the Buddha, teaching the Dharma. It's the head tops of all Buddhas and ancestors, the pupils of all Buddhas and ancestors' eyes. Commitment to its study has continued for 2,500 years, and so on. In a direct, undeviating descent of exactly 50 generations until my late teacher, and so on. So, as he usually begins, Ichitobo Genzo Fasico. It's like... The thing. This is like... the lion's roar of the Buddha. So then he does something really dynamic here as he often does playing with language.

[57:06]

All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha nature. So this word without exception is this term shitsu uu and uu can mean have but very conveniently uu can also mean to be. It can either mean to have or to be. So you could translate it. It's usually translated as all sentient beings have, but you could also translate it as Dogen likes to interpret as all sentient beings are Buddha nature. In fact, U is usually the character that's in contrast to Mu. If you talk about like is and isn't, like... When Jaoro said yes, actually it was this character, u. Like, have, you could say, or are. And without exception, this character, Shitsu, is like, can be interpreted, apparently, as, like...

[58:21]

whole being, complete being, without exception. You can see how there's some correspondence, right? Without exception, let's say, entire being, without exception, entirely including, like that. So that's how Dogen reads it. So he would read it as, all sentient beings, entire being, are Buddha nature. or all sentient beings, entire being, is Buddha nature. This may be, may be best. It's just a verb, so the way Chinese works is, it's just all sentient beings, or, you know, in plural and singular, it's not distinguished in Chinese either, all sentient being,

[59:22]

without exception have or are Buddha nature or all sentient being, whole being is Buddha nature. Chinese is very dynamic language so you could translate it either way. But the standard interpretation was without exception have. I think very much. I think that's why he reinterprets like this. In fact Dogen, that's one of his trademark things that Dogen does is he takes like just a Chinese saying from a sutra or a koan And he re-reads it. He actually plays with language.

[60:26]

And because the language is so interpretable, he re-interprets it often in the opposite meaning than was originally presented. So he has a lot of fun with language, Dogen. If you read Dogen, you see, very difficult. And very difficult to translate because, as you can see, you can translate in multiple ways. So this translator said, I'm going to write... in italics, the original sutra quote, the way it's usually said, and then in Dogen's commentary, I'm going to write it as the way Dogen interprets it. So, it's hard to follow. So, the words, entire being, is chitsu-u, or without exception, but you'll see here how Dogen's using it. The words entire being mean both sentient beings and all beings. So this is a key line in Dogen that seems to be implying that we're not just talking about sentient beings.

[61:31]

In other words, beings with body and mind, five skandhas, because we could say sentient being is a being with at least four skandhas. And I think Buddhist tradition would say earthworms actually have very primitive five skandhas and mosquitoes and so on. Body and mind, some kind of consciousness. So plants, for example, according to Buddhism, would not be sentient beings. According to as far as we've discovered in science so far, they don't have five skandhas. Quite luckily for them, they don't need this stuff. Five skandhas means suffering is unavoidable. So, the words entire being mean both sentient beings and all beings. In other words, entire being is Buddha nature.

[62:34]

I call the whole integral entity of entire being sentient beings. Just at the very time when things are thus... Both inside and outside of sentient beings are, as such, the entire being of Buddha nature. So this is Dogen, right? So you just have to let these words just kind of like sink into your Buddha nature, touch your Buddha nature. But I'll read that part again. Entire being is Buddha nature. I call the whole integral entity of entire being sentient beings. So each sentence is bringing out these huge topics. It's kind of saying all of everything is what we call sentient beings. And we could just discuss that line itself. And one way to do it would be from this mind-only point of view that actually all the external phenomena of the so-called world is actually mind.

[63:43]

of sentient beings it's conceptually constructed at least anything that we know and can you know that we think we actually you know experience as some thing and say well is there something behind it behind our conceptual constructions well if there is we'll never know it according to mind only all we have to go on is our conceptual constructions so um That could be a Yogacara interpretation of, I call the whole integral entity of entire being sentient beings. All of this, the ceiling and the floor, and the pillars and lanterns are sentient beings. Just at the very time when things are thus, thus, ta-ta-ta. Both inside and outside of sentient beings are as such the entire being of Buddha nature.

[64:51]

So it's just using words to pry the lid of our obscurations off the jewel of Buddha nature. Entire being is not only the skin, flesh, bones and marrow, directly transmitted from Bodhidharma to his disciples, for you attain my skin, flesh, bones, and marrow. This is, Dogen's constantly also referencing other Zen stories, which is a story about Bodhidharma transmitting his skin, flesh, bones, and marrow to his four disciples. But it's not only that skin, flesh, bones, and marrow, because you attain attain my skin, flesh, bones, and marrow. Like, we're not just talking about Bodhidharma's disciples, we're talking about you! Buddha, nature, manifests as every sentient being, which seems to now include rocks and the creek.

[66:03]

So, you must understand that the being... that the Buddha nature makes entire being is not the being of being and non-being. So we're talking about entire being now. So we might try to get a hold of that and say, entire being, it's like everything that exists, right? But this being that the Buddha nature makes entire being is not the being of this duality of being and non-being. I warned you. I'm sorry. You must understand that the being that the Buddha nature makes entire being is not the being of being and non-being. In other words,

[67:10]

The being that we're talking about here is not limited to existence. It's like the no is not like the yes and no. Yes. The no is not like the no of yes and no, and the yes is not like the yes of yes and no. And the commentary on that Giaudo's dog brings that out. In fact, Dogen picks up this comment, Dogen has a big section on the on the extended version of Jiao Do's dog in this fascicle, as you can imagine. If sentient beings, entire being, were to be contingent on the power of karma, or on causes, or on coming into being naturally, so if we're talking about this entire being, that is Buddha nature, if it were to depend on the power of karma, of our, you know, individual intentions, or on causes, even, any kind of causes, or on, we might say, well then, it must just come into being naturally.

[68:25]

Nope. If it were to depend on coming into being naturally, then the realization of all saints and the awakening of all Buddhas and the I-pupils of all Buddhas and ancestors would also be produced in these ways and they are not so emphasizing just as the Indian sutras do that this Buddha nature entire being is unconditioned it doesn't depend on anything but our effort or karma or it doesn't depend on how how thick our obscurations are and it doesn't even depend on naturally being there it's like completely unconditioned and therefore inconceivable, we won't be able to get a hold of this Buddha nature in any way. And yet, here it is, radiantly shining forth as through our faces.

[69:30]

Like Lin Ji said to the Assembly, There's a true person of no rank. Buddha nature. Moving in and out through the portals of your face. If you haven't seen it yet, look! Punch a hole through the cloud. So the awakening, the enlightenment of all Buddhas and ancestors... is not produced through karma or any causes and conditions or being there naturally. So you can relax. The entire world is completely free of all objective dust. Right here and now there is no second person. And then this part is pretty tricky. So there's no, there's not like a There's not like a second karmically... There's not like a second obscure person, you know, on top of or next to the Buddha nature person.

[70:46]

There's not like a Buddha nature dog and a skin bag dog. There's no second person or dog. That is because we are unaware that the root... source of our illusion or obscurations is severed we're not aware that actually the source of all our obscurations is inherently severed in other words the root source of all our obscurations never bound us or anything but we're not aware of that yet our busily engaged and widely ranging karmic consciousness inseparable from Buddha nature never ceases. So there's a non-duality between the karmically conditioned sentient being and the Buddha nature and the karmic consciousness of a sentient being never ceases and even though the root of obscurations

[71:59]

is not even really cut. It's like it was never there. But we're unaware of that yet. That's not the issue. Yes? Yeah, no other. No other. They could say there's no other who we think we are, but not so much like first person, second person, like in grammar sense. I mean, maybe that could be an implication here too, but like we say, don't put a head on top of your head kind of thing. Right now, there is no second person. Right here and now, there is no second person. Right here and now, right here and now, there is no second person. It is not original timeless being because I'm skipping around here, by the way.

[73:06]

It's very long. Yeah. If it doesn't make sense, that's probably why. It's not original timeless being because it fills the past right on up through the present. It's not emergent being because it does not receive even a particle of dust. It's not separate individual beings because it's an all-inclusive whole. It's not beginningless being because what is it that thus comes? It's not being that appears at a certain time because everyday mind is the way. You must know with certainty that within entire being it is impossible even with the greatest swiftness to encounter sentient beings. So here the Karmapa's view is affirmed. I thought, how wonderful to see that. Remember, he said that a sentient being must be relinquished.

[74:11]

So you must know with certainty that within this entire being, it's impossible, even with the greatest swiftness or diligence, to encounter sentient beings. In other words, you must know that in this entire being, you can't find any sentient beings. Understood in this way, entire being is in itself completely and totally emancipated suchness. And then he talks about the self a little bit. I want to have time for some conversation, so... I'll just read two short stories without any commentary. Dogen. You can read Dogen for them if you want. Huangbo was sitting in Nanquan's tea room and Nanquan said, practicing jhana and prajna equally, you clearly see the Buddha nature. So jhana is zen, meditation, and prajna is wisdom.

[75:18]

Practicing meditation and wisdom equally, you clearly see the Buddha nature. which is again a quote from the Nirvana Sutra. What is the essence of that teaching? So I think this is kind of a nice practical zazen and life instruction for clearly seeing the Buddha nature, practicing, you know, concentration, meditative concentration and non-dual wisdom. Equally, you clearly see the Buddha nature. What's the essence of that teaching? Huangbo said, the essence is attained when you're not depending on a single thing throughout the 24 hours. And the story goes on, but I thought that's kind of a nice little zazen instruction. You can realize this Buddha nature when you're not dependent on anything throughout the 24 hours or even for one moment.

[76:20]

but everything is dependent on everything else. So what about that? But Buddha nature is unconditioned, not dependent on anything else. So when you are dependent, a dependent manifestation, but you're actually not dependent on anything, it's known. And this is just, there are many, many stories about Buddha nature, Dobrin quotes in here, but this is the last one, and I won't read his commentary, but it's just such a strange, Zen story that people would get into these kind of conversations. I can't resist reading. So, at an assembly of the practitioners under Changsha, Minister Chu said, an earthworm is cut into two parts. The two parts both move. I think that's how it works, right? At least with inchworms and earthworms too. In which part is the Buddha nature found? And it's interesting to think about that. But Buddha nature is not located, but are there multiple Buddha natures?

[77:24]

Is there an individual one for each sentient being? And when you split in half, does the Buddha nature suddenly bifurcate? Like a cell or something? But then is it all just one big mass of Buddha nature? Then how can it see clearly through these individual eyes? The two parts move. In which part do you think Buddha nature is found? The master said, have no illusions. And Minister Chu said, well, what about that movement? The master said, it's just undispersed wind and fire. So, in the eight minutes or so remaining, is there anything you'd like to bring up? comment, inquire about Buddha Nature. Yes? The last point you made about being dependent but not being dependent.

[78:27]

Yeah. The way I interpret that is, like, you're not dependent, like, codependent, like, almost from, like, you're more, like, psycho-spiritual or emotional being. You're not dependent on anything just as you are. And, you know, if you're alone or you're with people, you know, You could say, like, you don't need anything to be any particular way, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. That would be one interpretation of... And independence is actually used in a lot of these Zen stories, becoming independent... So, you know, from a kind of rational point of view, we would say everything's interdependent, dependently arising.

[79:27]

So what is this independence? So you could, that would be one kind of practical interpretation, is we're just, we don't rely on any particular thing to be any particular way, and yet we're completely interdependent with everything. And another, maybe less practical, but... but more inconceivable interpretation it would be that if Buddha nature is truly who we are and Buddha nature is unconditioned which means independent Buddha nature doesn't depend by definition all these teachings agree that Buddha nature does not depend on anything like Dogen said it doesn't depend on what we do and it also It doesn't depend on, like, it doesn't even, didn't even arise, like, at the beginning of time. It's like it never arose. So that kind of independence is another interpretation.

[80:32]

Like, and both united, so we talked about the two truths yesterday. We're totally interdependent with everything, and yet, ultimately, there is no... Interdependence. Dependent co-arising is actually the conventional truth. And the ultimate truth is emptiness, where nothing arises or ceases. So we live in both worlds always. And from the conventional perspective, there's these two truths. From the ultimate perspective, there are two truths. Yes. I noticed that you were speaking it. I heard it. sort of an anthropomorphification of Buddha nature. Yeah. Willing or wanting to... Oh, uh-huh, uh-huh. There's something that is discordant.

[81:35]

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that is an interesting one, like we might say, like this Suzuki Yoshi saying it's wisdom seeking wisdom if we're talking about it's Buddha nature that's actually seeking to reveal itself and sometimes it's spoken of as like Buddha nature gives us like wake up calls like you know like the clouds part for a second is a little like Buddha nature saying I'm here sometimes we like get a gift or something but Yeah, it's funny to say anthropomorphizing, it doesn't have any will of its own, not of course, but part of the thing about Buddha nature is it has these qualities, these Buddha qualities of compassion, for example. So it's unconditioned, all-pervading compassion, and compassion actually is in relation to sentient beings and meets sentient beings.

[82:43]

We talked about yesterday this image of how does Buddha nature come to meet sentient beings or does Buddha nature compassionately manifest for sentient beings and there are these images like two guitar strings tuned equally and Buddha nature is constantly vibrating and the sentient beings like a string wrapped in cloth starts in resonance, starts vibrating you know, a little bit just next to Buddha nature. So it's like, that's not the will of that string to do that. It's not intentional. And in fact, they say Buddha's compassion is not like, for us, it might look like Buddha was so compassionate to like teach all his dharma and stuff. But from the Buddha's point of view, according to the teachings, it's like, there's no intention behind it at all. From a totally manifested Buddha, they don't have this dharma called intention anymore. It's like, It's just pure, fully revealed Buddha nature.

[83:48]

It's inconceivable how that works, but it does respond to beings like the moon reflected on water. It responds to beings or beings respond to it? Well, there's a story in the Book of Serenity where it says the Dharmakaya, as fully manifested Buddha nature, responds to sentient beings like the moon reflected in the water. You could say it's both. It's... as yesterday I mentioned, Kanodoko, you know that one? It's a Dogen and pre-Dogen term. Kanodoko is like this mutual resonance, mystical communion, sometimes translated, between Buddhas and sentient beings. So it's, yeah, actually totally mutual. It's not like the sentient beings just here and then Buddha's like, come on, come on, wake up and finally, okay. And it's not like the sentient beings are like, Buddha, show me, show me yourself, show me yourself. And like, grab Buddha, it can't be that either. But it is the intention. Actually, ascension beings do have intention.

[84:48]

So it is the intention and aspiration of ascension being to come into communion with Buddha that there's that meeting. These are metaphors, so it sounds like theistic almost to talk this way, right? But Buddha nature is not some thing. But yet, it, this inconceivable... suchness with these Buddha qualities of compassion. I think that compassion is the key thing, because compassion actually can come forward and meet the sentient being. And the way it can meet is like, its compassion starts vibrating with the compassion of the sentient being. So it's like when the heart just totally opens, inconceivably, in selfless compassion. That's like, we talk about punching these holes and like the wisdom side of seeing the clear blue sky. But it's important to know that sometimes these visions of Buddha nature are not so much in the form of non-dual wisdom, but more like compassion, like unhindered, completely selfless, like feeling the pain of others as yourself completely with no separation at all.

[86:03]

But this is going to be so painful for me that they're hurt. Not like that, but like no division. That kind of empathy is like, I think, also like a taste of what Buddhist compassion is like. We can only get them for short times because we have all these obscurations. Time. Yeah. Do you have a 29 second question? Yes. There's not really a severance between us, our understanding and Buddha nature, and yet we, from our perspective, work on our ancient twisted karma. Is there a problem here? That we're on this side of... Yeah, from our perspective as sentient beings, it seems like we are the obscuration. We say our twisted karma, but that is kind of who we are.

[87:06]

It seems like we are, and from the perspective And it seems like that's the separation or the... Is an obscuration like a separation? It's more like the images of like, you know, the cloth wrapped around Buddha nature. Or the cloud. We're like the cloud. Is the cloud separate from the sky? Not really. The cloud's in the sky. But when you're immersed in the cloud, you don't know that you're in the sky. So it's not quite a separation. And it's kind of like a separation. From our point of view, and from the sky's point of view, there's no separation at all, no obscuration. Separation is a conceptual construction of a sentient being. So you could say, in the end, from talking about Buddha nature, we could say the main obstruction that's relinquished to manifest Buddhahood is the belief in the separation between Buddhas and sentient beings.

[88:20]

May all beings realize the inseparability of Buddhas and sentient beings fully manifest their Buddha nature for the supreme benefit of all sentient beings. 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 sfzc.org and click Giving.

[89:07]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_93.77