On Sunday, Paravon read a section from the commentary, right? Yes. And he wanted to know what it meant. So you want to read the part that you had a question about? It was in honor of Mother's Day. Dongshan asked Yunzhu, a great incorrigible kills his father and mother. Where is the filial care? Yunzhu said, this for the first time fulfills filial care. This is a man whose filial duty is fulfilled and is falling down drunk. And then... I asked Elizabeth to explain. And she... Not explain, but something like that. And she said... Would you stand up and say what you said? I don't know.

[01:02]

You say what you said, and then you can tell us. Can you say what you said, and then if you want to say something different tonight, you're welcome to do so. What I said yesterday was... that I didn't hear it literally, that killing his father, your father's mother, is that, so in the network sense, in other words, that it's, they're, They're gone, and that what you are, you're left with is that you're yourself. You're now yourself. And they are themselves. And what you have killed, it is that tie, those obligations, that sense that there's no difference between you and them.

[02:03]

You're in a being in the world. So you're yourself. And they are themselves. And so that that is the fulfillment. And you've killed the difference between the two? Yeah. And so that now you are fulfilled. You are fulfilled that you are yourself. And that from then on, and now you are as falling down drunk, is that you surrender to life. Everything creates you, and you are intoxicated with life. You're... place in the world is a dependent on life. And the thing I did address yesterday is the incorrigible. A great incorrigible. He has his father and mother. And that today I'd say is

[03:04]

And incorrigible is someone who needs to rebel so that you're just as tied to your father and mother as if you were the most obedient person. So even that way, it's not about being virtuous. It's about being yourself. Thank you. For me, that kind of settles that particular story. I was very happy with that. Oh, sure.

[04:09]

You said killing the difference, but wasn't it killing the sameness? Pardon? Killing the difference between you and your parents. Right, isn't it killing the sameness, though? Killing the sameness? Mm-hmm. I mean, you want the difference, right? You don't want the sameness. Well, I think usually people think that... Well, let's say, anyway, killing the difference. She was saying, you're yourself, they're themselves. Okay? That sounds like this is one thing and that's another. So you kill the difference, but also kill the sameness while you're at it. Okay. Okay? Okay. Is everybody OK with that then? I thought it was interesting that this case doesn't have that case as the case.

[05:32]

This case too. This case 74 is not that case. The case you wrote, isn't that the case? I didn't understand what you said. The commentary that you read, that's a case too. Right. So that was the case. So I thought, in some sense, that case is as good as the case that we have. Don't you think? Yes. And it's more ancient. Probably. Maybe not, but I think so, because it's a story of Dengshan, and Dengshan is Shaoshan's teacher, right? And Yunzhu is Shaoshan's Dharma brother. So probably that story happened before. And was, in some sense, set the stage for this one, you might think. Make sense? So the commentator has chosen this story to put in his collection rather than that story. Does this story give us any further information about how to realize the Buddhadharma?

[06:50]

Stories are very close, right? To get any more sense of how to realize the Buddhadharma of the Zen Buddhas and ancestors tradition from the story of the main case story. Any more ideas or encouragement there? Isn't that when the morning clothes aren't worn it's more like what this was saying It's you not only kill the separation, but you're not holding on You're not even breathing separation You're letting go of the whole thing You're not even yeah You're not even grieving the separation.

[08:04]

You're not grieving the separation or you're grieving the killing the separation? I'm not grieving the killing of the separation. You're not grieving the killing of the separation. Can you move down a little bit more, Stuart? Could you guys move down that a little bit? Thank you. Kind of like a choo-choo train. So I thought Susan was saying that in addition to what we learned from the previous case, now this case perhaps says that after we kill the difference between our parents and ourselves, that we don't even...

[09:24]

have some cling to it. We don't even cling to the old days when we used to have that difference. It's a real clean break. So we don't even have to grieve for the killing of the difference or killing the sameness. We mourn and we feel like we've lost something. Pardon? We mourn and we feel like we've lost something. And what we're talking about here, there isn't a loss. No, I I hear you, and I think we mourn not when we've lost something, but when we hold on to something we've lost. Well, we believe we've lost something. Well, okay, so we believe we've lost something, but some people believe they've lost something but don't hold on to what they believe they've lost. And some other people believe they've lost something and do hold on to what they believe they've lost. So maybe we don't really lose anything, but if we don't lose anything, then holding on to it is not necessary.

[10:34]

And if we think we did lose something, holding on to it then requires a compensatory grieving or mourning for what we are holding on to, which we think we've lost. But in this case, if you think you've lost something, you don't hold on to it, and if you think you didn't lose anything, then you wouldn't be holding on to it either. Well, actually, some people actually can hold on to things they don't think they lost, too. But in this case, we did kill something, so we killed this thing, and we're not attached to it. Maybe, according to Susan's interpretation. Therefore, no grieving is necessary. So, first there's a proactive phase of actual killing, and then there's the follow-up response of not grieving over what has been killed, not being attached to what you've killed.

[11:35]

When I was a kid I used to bite my, particularly my wooden toys, I used to like to bite. Especially painted wooden toys. You didn't like to bite your toys? No. I can't remember what I did. I just thought it was funny. Well, we have a special class on, you know, what do you call it? Memory retrieval of early childhood. I see. Maybe I shouldn't say that. That's on Tuesday night. Anyway, I remember when I was fairly old, I used to still be biting my toys. Anybody ever bite their toys? Silly putty. Huh? What? Silly putty? Yeah. Well, I mean, it's fine to bite silly putty, but I like something that has a little bit more heft to it.

[12:39]

I used to like to bite wooden toys. Blocks. Blocks or other kinds of toys. And you can actually, the teeth can sink into it. This is generally soft wood. Teeth sink into the wood. It feels really good to bite into it. And if it's painted, it has a little kind of a crispiness. It kind of crunches. This is before I knew about lead. Maybe it's the lead poisoning. But the reason why I brought it up was because not only did I like to bite, and I still do like to bite, but I don't do it very much because nobody else seems to like it when I do it. But after I bit, I used to grieve my toys. I used to grieve my undented toys.

[13:41]

Now, many people, of course, bite on pencils. You've seen that, right? The pencils. Some of you done that? I didn't do that because I had, you know, the toys to bite. And they're more satisfying, bigger. So I didn't do the pencils. I did the larger pieces of wood. But I noticed other kids did the pencils. Do you remember why you did the pencils? They were wimps. Huh? They were wimps. Walsh, please. Please, Walsh. Thank you. Maybe furniture was too big. What? The furniture was too big. You mean their mouths weren't big enough? Or the teacher scared you. The teacher scared me? No. The teacher didn't scare me. I just liked to bite my toys. How long did you keep this up? Well, you know, I didn't do it too much because, like I said... After I bit the toys, I felt really sorry for my toys because they had these big dents in them.

[14:51]

So there was this thing of wanting to bite and feel that kind of like that actual mark into the toy, but feeling sorry that the toy was now kind of like had these teeth marks in it. So I grieved what I lost. I lost this nice, smooth, shiny surface. I grieved the loss of it. And so that in some sense limited the amount that I wanted to bite. And it's the same, you know, with other things that you might want to have an impact on, but if you have an impact on them, then you might sort of say, wow, geez, I kind of missed that unimpacted thing that I had before. After you made the toys, did you still play with them? When you were a dad, you said they were... No, they were still usable. Like, for example, a children's chair. I didn't bite through it, like, actually break the leg or anything.

[15:53]

They were still usable, but they had these dents in them. And the paint chipped off, you know. Do you like to bite people? I love to bite people. Go ahead. Does he want to let me bite him? He doesn't like you to bite him? Yeah, well, most people don't like to get bitten. You know, by somebody who's actually biting, you know, to get the real, you know, a good bite out of you. It's painful. Plus it leaves marks sometimes. It's very unsanitary. It's unsanitary. That's a very important point. I just want to mention, just parenthetically, you know, it's much more dangerous to get bitten by a human than by a dog. Because we have like zillion, not zillion, we have like 80 kinds of bacteria in our mouth, and they have like five. I think they actually have an anti-bite.

[16:54]

Huh? They might have just the opposite. Anyway, humans, human bites are really dangerous. So I'm glad people don't like it that much. I don't like the bite part. Not too much. I picked my granddaughter from my, not my grandmother, my granddaughter and Fred. You picked your granddaughter? Fred, would you look into this, please? I know, but would you try to, like, restrain her from biting your grandchildren? Because it's very unsanitary. Fred? I have had the pleasure of biting a lot of trees. And asking, there's sort of this little ritual game of asking if it's okay. What part of the tree do you bite? Usually it's madrone, where it's... Oh, yeah. Madrone, yeah, that would be good. You know, madrone, they have a real smooth surface, not like a poke bark.

[17:58]

That wouldn't be that much fun to bite that thing. The tree flies back. The drone bites back in my experience in the pressure against my teeth. I can't just go like that. I have to be mindful of the relationship between me and that tree or else I will get hurt. Oh, really? I mean, or it will hurt me. So I just think that's kind of neat. It reminds me of one of my favorite stories of the donkey in the well for some reason. Mm-hmm. I'm not sure who started it and who picked who. Uh-huh. Anything else that you'd like to say about the main case and what it maybe gives us beyond actually the commentary?

[19:03]

The commentary case that Erwan dug. Can you repeat that question? I was wondering if there's anything else about the main case that you find in the main case that gives you some kind of instruction beyond what you can get from the case in the commentary about the incorrigible. Yes. I probably should have made the comment at the beginning of the study of this case, but In China, ,, of course, I think everyone knows that it was heavily emphasized in China. And as part of the Confucian tradition, if your parents die, you actually undertake mourning for three years. And you wear mourning clothes for three years from that time. And typically, for example, if your father dies, and let's say he's an official somewhere, a minor official or something,

[20:09]

It's the son's duty to return the father's remains to their home. Because in China, of course, if you leave a place, you might be gone for 40 years, but you still regard that original place as your home. So, in fact, there are stories of certain monks fulfilling their filial duty. at the time that they realized the Buddha Dharma or decided to set off on the study of the way. So I'm just making the point that filial obligation wasn't sending your mother a card necessarily. It was a very serious matter. And when you contrast that situation with the situation in monks, living in a monastery. There's a tension there, I think, that might be hard to appreciate for us. Well, monks in the monastery wouldn't observe the normal observances of the filial relationship.

[21:15]

They would leave home. And so, in a sense, they would be betraying their filial relationship. Wouldn't that be part of it, though? I mean, I know in some countries it's really an honor for... certain children in your family to become monks, and if the parents are very honored by it and want that to happen, so that could also be an active career. Yeah, I think that's right. There's an aspect to it. It depends on whether the parents were Buddhist. Some parents might have had some problem with their son or daughter entering the monastery. But I think this is another interesting point, I think, is that since the Chinese people, and I don't know, actually, if... If in your reading you know this, I don't think peasants got to go home, but I'm not sure. In other words, if a peasant was living someplace and his father died, I don't think he could necessarily take time off from his peasant work to take his father home.

[22:25]

I think this is more common among the scholarly class. The peasants would never leave home, actually. They probably very seldom would leave home, right. But still, it wasn't just... And if a scholar had to leave his assignment to go home, you would think he might be able to ask for reassignment in his home, but I know of no examples when they did. And a lot of important literature is written when the scholar gets to go away from his job and go home. But I just wanted to parenthetically mention that it seems to me that that culture, aside from filial piety, I think they recognize that people need some time when their parents die. And they gave them, at least in the upper classes, they gave them that time to not necessarily continue with their busy lives.

[23:32]

I think we're now starting to wake up to that people do need that time and starting to gradually give it to them at this time. When I was a kid, for example, and I don't know what it was like 100 years ago, but 50 years ago, when women had miscarriages and stuff like that, You know, people didn't necessarily think that they wouldn't be back at work, and certainly the husband wouldn't necessarily miss work. So we didn't give much time to take care of grieving in America during most of my lifetime, and now we're starting to give it. I don't know if in the early days of America, whether more of that time was given. I haven't heard much about people being given grieving time in the history of this country. In Europe, I don't know. But that would be an interesting study. But the point that somebody might actually open to the way while in the process of grieving for the parents seems highly likely.

[24:47]

Making a long journey returning your parents' remains to your home, I would think would be a highly auspicious time to wake up. A lot of people, I think, talk about when their parents die, it's the first time that they actually get that they're mortal, because they realize that they're in the line of ancestry of the next. So I can see why that would be a waking up time. Yes, Pat. Could you stand up, please? I heard about it just a couple days ago. Right. Mm-hmm. Right.

[25:50]

He takes his American disciple with him, and his American disciple is not really that interested in Buddhism, but somehow they're friends. But, you know, and I don't know whether the Master brings the guy because I don't know what their motivation is, but they go to China together. And although the friend of the master, the American friend of this Chinese master is not necessarily interested in Buddhism, in fact, they have this relationship anyway. They're friends, yeah. They're friends. Did you read it? No, I just read about it. They're what? Neighbors. Oh, they're neighbors. Yes. He comes over and he introduces himself. All right. The master introduces himself to the guy, and how does he, did you read it? I got a report from Albert. Yeah, so then how does the master invite him to come? He says that he's going on the trip and invites him. For one thing, he doesn't describe him as a disciple.

[26:57]

At some point somebody asks him, is this your disciple? And he says, oh no, this is my best friend. And he invites him, and it's part of his understanding of how the trip will be financed, because the American is going to write this book for which somehow he manages to get an advance that sponsors the trip. I see. It's just worked it out. Uh-huh. Good. From what Andy's saying, it sounds like he would ask, how is it when mourning clothes are not worn? It sounds like that usually monks would not wear mourning clothes. Right. This is not an unusual thing. Right, so you could understand, in other words, how is it when morning clothes are not worn could be, how is it when you're a Buddhist monk? What's it like to be a Buddhist monk? And what it's like to be a Buddhist monk is, what?

[27:59]

It's to fulfill your piety. That's what Buddhist monks are about, is to honor their parents. To make their parents a success. A big issue with Chinese. Well, it's an issue here, too. It was a big issue in China. It was, in one sense, it was a difficulty for China. On the other side, it was a boon for the... In some sense, it was a boon or a great efficiency of Buddhism, is that the Buddhist communities didn't have the hard work and great expense of ancestor worship. Chinese funerals are sometimes devastatingly expensive, even for peasants who have nothing. Still, they spend all that they have sometimes, or more than they have, going to debt. Probably you've seen stories or read stories or seen movies about people going into debt doing funerals for their relatives. This is the great thing to do for somebody, is to do the best funeral you can possibly do.

[29:07]

arranged. Buddhists didn't have to do these fancy funerals. So it made it easier on the Buddhist lifestyle. I think there's certainly, one might think there's a lot of merit in doing your best for somebody who just passed away. But sometimes doing your best is interpreted as having a big feast, a big ceremony, feeding a lot of monks, you know, having a big spectacle. Someone else's idea of doing their best might be to enter into a state of realization, which is very inexpensive in terms of, you know, food and drink and, you know, valet parking and so on. So there was positive and negatives around this change in relationship to the parents.

[30:10]

At the same time, maybe, look, there was various arguments from the early days of Buddhism's importation to China that really this is true filial piety, that the old way is not the true way. The traditional way misses the point of what really makes parents a success. as parents and really makes the family a successful event. Yes? So it was in Japan that Zen priests started doing a lot of funerals, not China? I think in China they did funerals too. They did funerals for each other. And they did certainly funerals for major donors. Royalty. Huh? But royalty, but not so much for the lay. I don't know, royalty. But anyway, the scholarly class would support the monasteries. So the monks would do ceremonies for them. But in Japan, particularly the Zen school got into doing lots of funerals.

[31:18]

And somebody told me, I don't know if this is true, but even if it's not true, it's an interesting concept, that a Buddhist priest in Japan can't go into a hospital with his robes on. Or maybe a Buddhist priest can't go into a hospital with her robes on. But anyway, the male priest, when you go into the hospital, you're not, I heard, you should take off your robes because it scares people to see a Buddhist priest coming into the hospital. Because they think a Buddhist priest has death. So, if you're not feeling well, you don't invite a Buddhist priest to the hospital. After you're dead, you invite them, you send the body out to them, they take care of it, so. There's these associations. And that's part of the reason why also, until recently, they didn't have Buddhist priests do weddings. You have Shinto priests, who actually often wear the opposite color robes, who wear white.

[32:21]

And so they represent, you know, fertility and abundance and wine. Wine and rice are a big part of Shinto. In Zen, it's mostly like they eat the wine and the rice, but they don't necessarily bring on the abundance. There's some association. But on the other hand, Buddhist priests often displace other kinds of religions by doing various skillful things like finding ways to cure certain diseases of plants and finding ways to purify water and finding water where there wasn't water before. They've done things like that, too, to convert people to Buddhism. So there's no hard and fast rule, but there did develop an association like that. Yes? Listening to all this talk of sort of the tension between Confucian formalism, filial piety, the monastic lifestyle, as well as the incorrigible, killing the mother and father, it makes me think of dogmatism.

[33:46]

And I'm not quite sure if this, what I'm saying, can settle with it, but kind of the idea of relinquishing dogmatic attachment, the authority of the ancestor, killing the ancestor makes sense. But being a main teaching is for each person to explore this teaching. in a new way. And perhaps fulfilling the filial duty of our ancestors completely would be killing our ancestors. And so that's, I think that's, I agree with that. However, we also need to, before we kill our ancestors, we need to find out our ancestors' method of killing. So we should understand the way they killed and, you know, we should... I would encourage us to, like, understand their method and then go beyond it.

[34:56]

But first of all, you see, you're actually... what you say is actually part of understanding their method, and you say we have to go beyond that. But first of all, let's tune into their method, okay? I think there's something to be said for killing the first. Have you killed them? Have you killed them? Have you killed them? Yes. Or is it? like when they really bloom. Are they blooming?

[36:00]

No. Well, let's kill them when they're blooming. Let's wait until they're really nice and blooming before we kill them. Let's fatten them up. It's not too late sometimes. They bloom, then they go to seed, and it's red hair. You don't get it. He just gave us the ancestors. How is that? He just spread them out all over the pages and sent them out all over the place.

[37:10]

Not to drown him. Now we have to see him in order to kill him. You have to see them in order to kill them, or smell them. You have to have something to kill. So you prefer killing rather than transcending or going beyond? I prefer killing over transcending. Killing over transcending. Sort of a karmic thing. What do you mean karmically? Well, you want your children to go beyond you. Yeah. Rather than kill you. Right.

[38:16]

But if you want your children to go beyond you rather than kill you, then guess what they have to do? I have to kill you? Right. So maybe you should switch to, you'd rather have your children kill you than go behind you. Then they'll go behind you instead of killing you. Your good parents don't do what you don't want them to do. So you should switch what you want them to do. That's true. Just, you know, say, do not kill me. Please kill me. Don't transcend me. They do it anyway. Do what? Transcend you. They do anyway? Yeah. I hope so, but I hope so. But some children maybe, they don't dare. They think they're not supposed to transcend you. They think if they're really faithful children, they should not go beyond you. That would be honoring you.

[39:17]

This is what he caught there. What's the thing, the prisoner of, prisoner of what? Prisoner of childhood, is that what it's called? The blank of the gifted child? Granted child. Yeah, that some children sense that their parents don't want them to go beyond them, that their parents want them to, like, confirm them, you know, confirm my trip, don't go beyond my trip. But even those still go beyond you. In reality they do, but the point is, it's not so much what reality is, it's to get to have the child realize reality. Well, you don't think they do anyway? They do, but sometimes they don't get it. I mean, usually the children do not get it. I mean, I don't know if usually, but I think more than 51% of children do not get it.

[40:24]

But in fact, they do go beyond you, but they don't get it. They don't get it. So what we want them is to appreciate the reality that they do go beyond you, that they do transcend you. We want them to like, for them to get that. The parents don't have to. make what's really so, so, they need to help the children realize what's so. And so you have to encourage the children to do something so they'll get that they go beyond it anyway. I sort of feel like they get it even if you don't make them realize it. They get it. Maybe your kids do, but a lot of kids don't. A lot of kids are afraid to get it because they think they're disloyal if they get it. So that's case 13 here, right? Case 13 is about that, where Linji says to Sangchang, don't kill my teaching.

[41:32]

In other words, don't kill me. After I die, don't destroy all my work. Don't transcend me. And the funny thing is, in my feeling, is that you really mean that. You really mean, please don't do that. Even though when they do do it, and they do what you don't want them to do, you know that you're a success because they haven't done what you wanted. But you really are bothered that they did. I don't understand why would you tell them, why would you mean it when you said, don't transcend me? Because they do the opposite. There's some times when you, for example, with your children or your students, when there's something they want to do,

[42:37]

and you really do disagree, really you do disagree, and if they do that, that's going to be a problem for you. Especially if they disagree about your teaching, you think your teaching is perhaps just wrong, and they're going to kind of destroy your teaching, make sure nobody respects your teaching anymore. They really do want to do that, and you really don't like it, even though you understand that this is exactly what they need to do, in order to keep the practice alive, but you really don't like it. You don't like it, but you want them to do it. What? You don't like it, but you still want them to do it. Is that what you're saying? No, you don't want them to do it, but you do want them to be alive. that parents really want their children ultimately to be true to themselves. I mean, that's what I think the deepest wish of a parent is. Yeah, right.

[43:39]

But not in this case. Not this way. And the way you don't want them to do it, they have to do it that way because if they do it the way you do want to do it, if they realize themselves the way you feel good about, then they never know They think maybe they did it that way to please you. And maybe that's not their way. But if you really don't like the way, then they can be sure they're not doing it to please you. This fits right in line with my court case. Yes, it does. So, I mean, the children, most children occasionally agree with their parents, please their parents, do something where they feel like they're being loyal to their parents. and the parents may agree with them. But sometimes there has to be a disagreement. And to really go beyond your teacher, or we say it's to stand on your teacher's shoulders, first of all, you have to get up on their shoulders, and then you have to stand on them.

[44:47]

And to make sure you're really going beyond, there has to be, I think, a little bit of a disagreement And the teacher also can be fooled into, you know, the teacher also, like if the student is just what the teacher wants, this is pretty easy for the teacher. Pretty comfortable. Pretty easy for the parent. I have one of each of those types of kids that you're describing. And even the one that doesn't really express herself the way the other one does, she still knows what's happening. She still is in realization of what's happening. So that's how she's going beyond me. How?

[45:48]

By understanding? By seeing it, by seeing what's happening. Well, she's a wonderful girl, but there's some potential that hasn't been realized yet, which will be realized when she disagrees with you. You mean outwardly? I mean, well, outwardly. To disagree inwardly. I mean like, yeah, like outwardly, not just inwardly. which is for her to stand on her shoulders and go beyond you. But yeah, inwardly she disagrees with you, but she needs to outwardly disagree with you and see that she really does, and see that you really do disagree with her, and you really don't appreciate, you don't like this, and you're having trouble with it, and you still love her, but you really don't like it. This is like a potential for you to, you know, enact another dimension of development for the two, for the two people.

[46:53]

But all that's been going on so far makes a nice basis of love and trust for this next step. Well, I think people have different ways of expressing themselves and That's just her way. That's her personal way of expressing herself. So far. Right. But now there's a possibility for her own personal way to go beyond her own personal way in such a way that she can be sure it's her way because she knows it's not just her way that agrees with her mother. But she doesn't have to kill me to do that. she doesn't have to kill you she doesn't have to kill you unless you tell her not to Which you are. I seem a bit bull's-eye.

[47:55]

But you tell her not to force you to do that. But if you say, if you give her some other options, you know, you can kill me, you know, you can do this, you could become a Zen student, you know. Give her all these things that you don't want her to do. Or, you know, just kill me off the list of the things she's not supposed to do. No, I mean, I don't have a problem with being killed, because I have plenty of things I'd want to kill. That's not the point. The point is it's going above and beyond. Right, but I'm just saying, whatever you say she doesn't have to do, and if she doesn't have to do it, plus she would rather have her not do it, then those would be things that she could be sure that she wasn't doing for you as a baby. Those would be the things that would help her know that she's really among those things, those things that she'd like to do that you definitely don't want her to do. Those would be good possibilities for her. You know, it's in relationship to you.

[48:59]

She doesn't have to do A, B, or C, but if you say, don't do C, then C kind of gets, geez, I mean, I didn't want to do C before you told me that you didn't want me to. Now that you told me you don't want me to, then I kind of wonder, well, this is kind of a good, you know, there's something special there for us. Hmm. That it's not that she has to do that, but if you're setting the limits there and that gives you something to push on, if she can push on that, if everything that she thinks of, you just say, fine, darling, then she can't exercise herself. But when she finds something that she touches and doesn't move, then she can really use her energy. And I think that's good that you would present something where you're not just going along with her and she doesn't just flow naturally. But someplace that sticks and then mother's there saying, no. And then she can push, oh yeah, there's actually something there.

[50:02]

And then she can feel how strong she is. But if she pushes like this and you just go like this, then she can't do this, she can't really use all her muscle on you if you always go with her. So she's looking for some way to meet your strength where she can express hers. If she meets your softness and your acceptance all the time, then she has to go someplace else. But it's really nice that you would be one of the people she could get some resistance from. Then you and she can make this this wonderful thing together, by you not just going along, but pushing back. And since you're the mother, you particularly want her to be able to do this, because you've been able to do it with, for example, your father.

[51:04]

So your father's been strong, you can push on him, right? Right. So that's been what your father's done for you, is he's been very strong there, so you've been able to develop your muscles disagreeing with him. So in that sense, and he really did disagree with him, right? Right. Right. But that's been, you know, and I probably disagree with him too, but... But the point is that if he's completely wrong from our point of view, all the better for us to develop and flower in our expression. Because if somebody completely agrees with you, that's swell, but there's nothing to grow on. You just go... It's when you hit something and then we can start... you know, playing and developing and creating something. Silly putty or nutty putty or whatever it is, Play-Doh is nice stuff, but, you know, it's just for starters.

[52:15]

Different motives. Yeah, it's nice for kids, you know, you warm up, but eventually you get into marble and bronze, you know. And it takes more. It requires more of you to work with that stuff. It's in steel and diamonds. But some of the stuff's nice. But you could say Nutty Putty is OK if you want to use it for weaving. Something like that, that would be good to use Nutty Putty for. But just to shape, making shapes with Nutty Putty is for kids. For starters, if you want to make shapes, use something hard. If you want to make something intricate, use something soft and pliable and unmanageable that kind of gets all stuck together and won't behave very well. Like there are certain cloths that are very difficult to work with, but they're really great to weave and sew with.

[53:21]

as you really want to get into the challenge of the work. Yes? What about the freedom to do what mother wants even when she wants it? What about that? Yeah, you're free to do that. If you've never tried that, I would recommend you give it a try. So for some people that's like going beyond is like do exactly what Mother wants and please her. Well, that's really, in a way, in this use of the word killing, if I'm understanding one lens of it anyway, is that that would be really killing her. What would be killing her? Really killing her. Would be? Doing what she becomes completely irrelevant. Are you saying really killing her, actually killing her, would be to agree with her completely? Or disagree with her completely, but that it wouldn't make any difference to others because it's not about her anymore.

[54:25]

I don't think disagree... I think disagreeing with her completely... Well, disagreeing with her completely is like great. I mean, that's terrific. But it's not about her anymore. Well, but the mother... What the mother is, is your... Your life is what the mother is. The mother is about your life. You're what the mother's about. If you're the baby, you're what the mother's about. She's totally getting everything for your life. So if you disagree with her all the time, she's successful. That's great. But it's okay to be accrued with your mother once in a while. It's okay. It's not the end of the world. But if you never disagree with her, something's funny I mean, she's either a total brute, probably a total breed, if you always agree with her.

[55:31]

Probably. I don't think for sure, but probably. What do you think? Any problem with that? Well, she could be silly putty. But if she's silly putty, wouldn't you, I think... If she's silly putty, you're just going to beat her up. Yeah, you're going to try to get some reaction. But you never disagree. Yeah, I agree. I think if the child never disagrees, then the parent is... is probably a phylogenesis. Yeah. It might be totally implicit. They might be totally, I don't think gone. I think gone, they're going to beat on you until they get a reaction if you're gone. If they're totally putty, they're going to whack on you until they get a response. But if they're not whacking on you, what? Yeah. But if they're not whacking on you and they're agreeing with you, you must be giving the message either grossly or subtly, do not disagree with me.

[56:46]

That will be the end of the whole thing. You're going to like, I'm going to be like, I mean, one of the most abusive things you can say to a child is, you know, I'm out of here. you know, if you disagree with me. I'm going to collapse if you disagree with me. That's the worst possible thing. I'm going to beat you up, that's pretty bad. If you disagree with me, I'm going to beat you up, that's pretty bad. But you're going to lose me. I'm going to be like, I'm going to be in the hospital if you disagree with me. That's worse. And I think some mothers and some fathers, but particularly mothers who I think feel that more, mothers feel like, you know, I'm going to go crazy if you keep being like this. My dad was like that, because I'd want to discuss things with him, and he'd always act like I was trying to argue with him. I'd say, no, I just want to talk to you about it. He'd say, I don't want to argue, if I had a different opinion. Well, again, I don't want to argue is one thing, but I'm going to be like gone if we argue.

[57:49]

That really scares the kids into submission. Okay. If I'm going to lose my dad or lose my mom in this argument, if at the end of the argument you're going to be gone, I won't argue. Or the other would be, if at the end of the argument I'm going to be gone, if you're either going to kill me or I'm going to lose you, if those are the options for expression, then forget it. Okay, I agree with you. I actually think that's the way most... people interact with each other. I think that we have endless conditions that we place on each other, whether we're conscious of them or not, and as long as the people in our lives fit into a particular box that's comfortable and isn't too unpredictable and doesn't go into areas that we don't understand or don't accept, then we feel okay. I think that we come up with these contracts with each other without even realizing we've done it.

[58:50]

And I think that, you know, I work with kids, I've worked with kids for many years, and I just, I see kids really having the kind of nature where they just can be anything at any time in any way. They have a complete resiliency of being. And yet they're in a world of adults, which is very linear. It's very specific, and it doesn't move very much, and it's very solid. And so I think that's a tricky thing. And it's just tricky for, I mean, we've all been kids. We've all had to grow into a world that couldn't really accept how complex it is to marry one. Yeah, yeah. So here, this is a, so that's what this class is for, is for us to, you know, using the ancestors as a point of departure for, you know, not making a deal with people that we're going to like, we're going to act in such a way that things are kind of going to be workable.

[59:59]

How are we going to set about in a project of making new agreements and new contracts with people? Not smashing the old nice agreements we have, not just being reckless and careless, but how are we going to carefully set up a new contract being able to... Aliveness. Aliveness, yeah. And in aliveness, through expression, and encouraging others to express themselves, how are we going to How are we going to both make a contract, which is also to make a context or a container where we can really put it out there in a loving, careful way, but we can put it out there because we've already discussed how to do it and we've checked out what party is in agreement.

[61:15]

So do we have some relationships, or a relationship, where we're doing that? Where we have a clear understanding of how that's going to go? And even can we work on that kind of thing in this class? Do you mean a clear understanding of how that's going to go? Well, like I'm saying to you, that I will, well, I say to you, I would like to marry you, and would you like to marry me? In other words, do you want to share life with me? Do you want to plight your troth to me, put your truth in danger to me? I would like to endanger my truth to you, but I don't want to do it unless you're going to do the same with me.

[62:22]

And I would like to stay with you through, you know, rich and poor, sickness and health, and so on. I'd like to, like, do this life with you and really put myself out there for you to comment on, interact with, disagree with, and so on. And I would like you to do the same. which partly you'll do that by disagreeing with me and stuff like that. So we have this agreement, and then you say, well, does this mean blah, blah? And I say, yeah. And you say, well, I don't want to do it that way. And I say, what way do you want to do it? And you say, I want to do it this way. And I say, okay. And you say, I want to check. Is this what we're going to do? And I say, yeah. And so we go forward this way with an understanding of how to relate, how to disagree. how to check on each other, check with each other about our understanding as we proceed through life, this kind of thing. Does that make sense?

[63:28]

That answers one question, but... That answers one question? Which one did that answer? Well, it answered a specific situation, you know, and it answered... What is the specific situation that it answered? how to set up a, you know, a relationship with an individual. Yes. But when you take it out into the world and you are working with people of, you know, where your relationships are so, you know, of varying types. Can you hear her? Barely. Well, she says that speaks about a relationship with one individual, but when you take it out in the world and you're dealing with varied individuals... Varying types of people, different types of relationships. Right. So you have to do the same thing with each person. That's what it would mean. And in a class like this, everybody has to participate in order to bring this thing alive. This is like... And this is like, this has already been a ten-year class, and it's going to go a few more years.

[64:31]

By the end of this class, maybe we will have understood how a group of people can do this. our community can do this. Because it really is not just about you and me, although it includes you and me. It's about me and these other people and these other people and you. And it takes a lot of work to work this out. Is it getting too cold? I'm just putting my coat on. So, in some ways, This kind of work is, it takes quite a bit of effort just to sort of get started. But it's good work and I think it's necessary. Because just to go forward on assumptions without putting things out and checking on can be harmful and can just cause a reaction and regression, actually.

[65:39]

Okay, so I think that somewhere in there is the answer to what I was really wondering about, which was that you make too defined of a framework for a relationship than the danger of losing spontaneity. or of, you know, being stilted or something like that. But I think that something in what you just said kind of reminded me that you can have a framework and you can always agree to change a rule or change something, but it's all part of the discussion. You can agree that changes could be made. Right. But that we would... Spontaneously. That could be made spontaneously, but still in relationship. Right. Right. So like on Sunday, yesterday, was it yesterday? Was it Sunday? Mm-hmm. So yesterday during the talk that was given in the morning, some people felt that that was kind of, kind of had a feeling of spontaneity, I heard.

[66:43]

You know what I'm talking about? I think so. Did you have a feeling like that at all? Mm-hmm. There was some spontaneity? Right. But there was also a little bit, I also was kind of like checking out with people, you know, feeling people out whether that would be all right. Could you feel me doing that? Like I was actually asking, you know, is it all right that I'm giving this talk? And I said, no, it's not all right for me to give a talk. So what I said in the talk was, I'm not giving this talk. Is it okay that I don't give the talk? Is it okay that we sort of understand this is not being given by me? And some seem like people could, that was okay with people, it seemed like. Did it seem like that? That did sort of change the context a little bit? And that allows me to be more spontaneous because I don't feel like I'm doing it, like I'm coming in here and I'm being spontaneous. Because that's not really spontaneity for me to be spontaneous. So it was spontaneity, but it wasn't my doing.

[67:46]

So then other people could also be there and it could be spontaneity all over the room. So I think, for me, I think people are afraid to be spontaneous because they don't understand the contract. So they have another idea of a contract, which is like, okay, the contract is, stay in your box. That's certainly okay. It's relatively safe, and probably that won't offend anybody if I just stay in my box. And in my head, in my box, I'll do these little spontaneous little mumbles. But if I come out of the box and do that, this could offend somebody, or worst of all, they might not like me. They saw all my cute little spontaneities, eccentricities, weirdnesses. That's not real spontaneity, that one you do in your head.

[68:49]

That's just a rut. Now, some people say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm really creative inside here, like Mishima. Mishima, the Japanese writer, he was really creative and spontaneous in his head, right? But I think he was actually a rut. to get a lot of ability. He should have had somebody, other people in on this with him. But he didn't. He didn't get it out there. He stayed up all night writing all by himself in his room, all by himself doing all this kind of really interesting... People found him fascinating. But I don't think what he was doing was spontaneous. I mean, it really was, but I don't think his way was to realize that. I think we can only be spontaneous And other people use us. If we're in charge of our spontaneity, it's not spontaneity.

[69:55]

What other people are, what do you want? You're interrupting me. I was on a roll here. I was, you know, you were using me, now you don't want to use me anymore? You want to talk, you want me to use you? Whatever you want. I want you to tell me something. I'll tell you whatever you want. That's exactly what I didn't want, thank you. I didn't want you to say that, thank you. That's what everybody said to Misha, man, look what happened to him. I wanted to ask a big question. I don't want that either, so go ahead. You were talking about... Well, you said go ahead and going ahead. I did say go ahead and you are going ahead. Please go ahead. Thank you. Please. You were talking about this.

[70:58]

You're doing this all wrong. Thank you. This is not what I want, is for you to be talking now. I was very struck by your image of the decoy yesterday when you were talking because I felt like that. You put out decoys of yourself? Yeah. Is this a decoy? Or is this the real duck? To get the real duck. Okay, good. So this decoy is so distasteful. Now it's not distasteful. It's scary. It's not scary. That's why you use it. You put the decoy out there so you don't be scared, so they'll get the decoy, not you. Well, there's a difference. There's one that's out there pretending, and then there's one here that says, don't do that, you know.

[72:04]

Don't do that. Don't do that. What? Don't do that. This is not... There's too much of a difference. There's too much of a decartinal ritualist. Don't do that. Do what? What should you do instead of that? The decoy. Garden? Don't... Don't do the decoy. Don't feel that you have to do the decoy. Right, right. Right, right, right. I got that. So what do you want to do? What's not the decoy? What's the duck? What's the actual vulnerable duck? Sometimes. What is the duck? That's what you want to do, right? You're doing the decoy again right now by talking about the decoy. Show us the duck. Please, the duck. What's happening?

[73:11]

Why aren't you showing us the duck? Is it the duck? Is this the duck? Huh? Is this the duck? The duck is scared. Yeah, is it the duck? The quiet duck? Is this it? This might be the duck. Just like this. This might be it. Is this the duck? Like, is this it? That's the duck. Yeah. Is this duck falling down drunk? Drunk? Yeah. All right. Yes.

[74:18]

I want to say something. I want to say sometimes there is private. There is something private. You're talking about a writer doing writing. Sometimes there's something private, yes. Then it's not just with you and you. Sometimes you might be alone and there might be you in the world. Something might happen in you. Well, I think there's something private, but I don't think it's you. No, no, I know, not you. It's not you. There is something private, but it's not you. It's not your privacy, but there's something private. And I agree, there is something private, something very, very private. That's part of the deal. But the privacy we want is something that has nothing to do with us staying in our little box and not expressing ourselves.

[75:21]

As a matter of fact, I think the more we express ourselves, including not saying anything, the more we realize there's something that's very private. And you can express that private thing without telling anybody what it is. Or it can express itself. It can express itself and still stay private. Yes? Yesterday there are two things that arose. An interaction with you and then later on an interaction with my my father on the phone, which is probably the most wonderful phone I ever had with my mother.

[76:22]

I felt released and I felt able to just be happy talking to her on the phone. And the relation between those is clear and fragmentary. Clear and fragmentary? There's no whole story. Every time you talk about this expressing yourself thing, there's this question which comes up, which is, yeah, on one hand it seems like a really good idea, and on the other hand, it looks like a really dangerous. It is dangerous, and as a matter of fact, if there's no danger in your self-expression, you haven't found the fullness of your self-expression.

[77:27]

Full self-expression will be dangerous sometimes. Okay, so the name of the game seems to be, like, how to manage that, because, like, out in the world... How to manage what? The danger? Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of things I could self-express to a lot of people. The managing thing... is what you let go of in full self-expression. So you don't manage it. Managing is about managing the danger and manage the danger. This is about giving up the management thing through full self-expression. In partial self-expression you're expressing yourself and managing at the same time. But does it, I mean, can somebody survive out in the world fully self-expressed? Can somebody survive? This is not about survival. Well, I would like to survive. Of course you'd like to survive, but this is not about survival. We're not going to survive. We're going to be gone pretty soon.

[78:30]

You've got to tell them about the precepts, right? Tell them about the precepts? Yeah. She wants me to tell you that although you're not going to survive, she wants you to always practice the bodhisattva precept. In fully expressing yourself. In fully expressing yourself, practice not killing, not stealing, not lying. But the way I say it is, fully expressing yourself is not stealing, not killing, not lying. If you're killing, you're not fully expressing yourself. If there's an opportunity to kill, like, I don't know, whatever, like kill a bug, that's a self-expression, but it's not full. Full would be to not do it, to find something more interesting to do with the bug than kill it. I turn on the lights on outside so it just flies outdoors. That's a little bit more interesting.

[79:31]

You know, human beings have known how to squash bugs for quite a while, but turning on lights is something we've only known since Thomas Edison. Or me. There's all kinds of creative ways to relating to bugs. There are more than 16 creative ways to relate to a bug. More than 16. There's infinite creative ways to relate to a bug. There's only basically one way to kill a bug. Basically, kill it. It's very primitive. Killing is very primitive. It uses a very small part of our abilities. But to nurture and care for bugs, to watch over bugs, always with their welfare and thinking of how they can realize Buddhahood, this is like an infinitely creative process. And this is part of your full self-expression. But also, caring for bugs is a little bit dangerous. It looks really dangerous. Yeah, it is dangerous. What we're talking about in this book is not about survival.

[80:37]

This book is about, since we're not going to survive, okay, since we're not going to survive, how can we make the utmost use of this wonderful opportunity of this non-surviving situation called life? How can we live it most fully And most fully means to live it, turns out most fully is to live it gently, kindly, but also very energetically. Because it's not kind to crush yourself and crush your energy and squelch your expression and keep yourself in a box. That's not nice to you and it's not nice to do it to other people. So, yes. I think Erwin's question, if I could ask it for him... May she ask you a question for you? Yes. It is not so much about management, but about skillfulness. Is your question about skillfulness? Well... I don't think so, but... Anyway, skillfulness, skillfulness, that's what Jackie's saying.

[81:41]

Jackie's saying full self-expression, skillfulness. Skillfulness is not killing, not stealing, not lying. That's skillfulness, okay? What's the matter? Yes or no? Yes. So it's skillfulness. But he's also talking about danger, not just skillfulness. That's what he was bringing up. Danger, he senses that there's danger in it. There is. There's a little bit less danger if you stay in the box. But staying in the box, you will never end suffering. Never. You'll just keep causing more suffering by staying in the box. You have to come out of the box You have to express yourself, and that's more dangerous, but that brings the resources to end suffering, not just for yourself, but for everybody who you're expressing yourself to, who has now a chance to express themselves back to you, and that's what's dangerous, and that's what's dangerous for them, but that's where life happens. You know this. Yes? Can I ask Elena a question? Sure. So it looks like you fully expressed yourself.

[82:44]

Thank you. Did you survive? Yeah, I liked it. I liked it when I fully experienced it. But there was a lot of fear. Wait a second. She said, how did it feel? And then you said, did you survive? Yeah. Okay. Sometimes you don't survive. Sometimes you do. But the point is, it's not for survival that you're doing this. Well, it doesn't really matter. That's not the point. We've got all kinds of survival stuff going on, too, that may still go on. You know, your body's got its own agenda to survive. You don't have to make your whole life a slave to that. It does it on its own. And when it doesn't want to do it anymore, that's going to be that, pretty much. So in the meantime, why don't we express ourselves, because that's the best thing you can do. I'm saying to each of you, the best thing you can do for me is to express yourself. That's the best, greatest gift you can give to me, is express yourself.

[83:45]

Are you making a face for any particular reason? What's the matter? It doesn't have to be something extra, right? No. It's always right there anyway. It's not extra. It's always right there anyway. Right. So what's the matter? I mean... Well, do you get... Do you get it? Do you get it? Let's say I get it. Let's say I get you're always fully expecting yourself, because it's true. When you're in the box, from my point of view, you're expressing yourself, but do you get it? No, you don't, because you feel like, I'm playing it safe, it's safe in here. You don't get that that's full self-expression because you think, I don't want to feel what it's like to be out of the box. I don't want to be in danger. I'm saying, give me what it's like for you to be out of the box. I can see you in the box, but also come out of the box. But whether you're in a box or not in a box, you actually are always doing it. But can you feel it when you're protecting yourself?

[84:49]

And I say, no. Your protection makes you not be able to see it. And I can see that you're not seeing it, even though I can see you're perfectly expressing not seeing it because you're protecting yourself. But protecting yourself is a full expression of not protecting yourself if you don't get it. Somebody else can see it just perfectly well. Like I tell the story about my niece, my beautiful Chinese niece. She's so beautiful. And she's not the only person that's beautiful. She's just one. I know some other beautiful people, too. But this particular beautiful person thinks she's ugly. She thinks she's ugly. Well, she's not. She's wrong. And she's just radiating beauty, but she thinks she's ugly. But that's her safety. It's much safer for her to be ugly and feel bad about it than to realize what would it be like if she took responsibility for how beautiful she is. That would be dangerous.

[85:50]

It's safe to be ugly. She goes to school, nobody cares about me. These boys don't care about me because I'm ugly. And she goes like this, and they're afraid to talk to her because she looks like she's going to break because she's feeling so ugly. So they stay away from her so she feels like, yeah, it's really safe. If she were to stand up and just stand in a play yard, they'd be all over her. Dangerous. But she's expressing herself fully when she says, this radiant beauty says, I'm ugly. Full self-expression. She doesn't feel it because she's trying to be safe. She doesn't want to feel her life. But there's no way not to. There's only a way to fool yourself, which is perfectly obvious sometimes. Just like it's obvious as a beautiful person saying, I'm ugly. Oh, well, that's not so. Does that make sense? Yeah. Anyway, this is the contract that I think this case and all cases are about.

[86:59]

These people are setting up contracts for full self-expression. These are stories of danger. Danger of individual selves. Individual selves are in danger. Individual selves will not survive, are in danger. So get with the program. Feel that in your interactions all day long and understand that the most dangerous way to live is to not kill and not steal. That's the most dangerous. And that's the way where you get all the resources to end suffering. Killing all these things is a way to try to make your life less dangerous. And have no resources and just stay in suffering forever by killing and stealing and lying and intoxicating and slandering others. This is a way to keep everybody away, stay in your box, be mean to yourself, be mean to other people and be safe.

[88:05]

And be dead, even though you're fully alive, breaking all these precepts. But you don't get it. You don't get it. Because you're doing all this to make yourself safe. Do you want to go on to the next case? Yes. Okay. I'd like to talk about the commentary. Do you like to talk about the commentary? The verse. You did good. Okay, well, for Maya's sake, because she's the real Jisha, right? We'll talk a little bit more about whatever Maya wants to talk about at the beginning of this class. But if you want to start looking at case 74, I have copies here for you. Please take to heart that I'm saying to you, this person says the greatest gift you can give me is your full self-expression.

[89:13]

Now I may have to leave town, if you do, because my life will become so alive if you give me that gift that I probably won't be able to stand being that alive. being that sort of like, what do you call it, falling down drunk. I'll be so embarrassed that falling down drunk with all the gifts of your full self-expression, I just won't be able, I'll just be so embarrassed I'll go off to some halfway house. But eventually, but eventually when I recover, I'll come back. So don't be insulted if I just can't stand all your love. Your love in the form of you endangering yourself by showing me who you really are. But that's what I'm asking for even though I know I regret it. But I know in my regret I'll be saying, I know I asked for this. This really is life.

[90:14]

I know, [...] I know. I know this is it. Just calm down. You'll be okay. You'll be okay. You'll get used to this. Like actual life. These people all just being themselves which I don't agree with. But I'm asking that of you. And I think there's more than one person that wants this from you. At least, I think, probably, at least one more person wants this from you. Like, I think Buddha wants this from you, really. I think so. Don't you think so? Don't you think this is what Buddha wants? Just unadulterated, unprotected, full you, as best you can. How do you interpret the Buddha leaving town? Huh? Buddha leaves town. Buddha leaves town.

[91:15]

Buddha leaves town if you don't give Buddha this present. Buddha will leave town. And then after Buddha leaves town, you'll be so sorry. You'll say, I wish I could give Buddha that present. Then Buddha will come back and give it to Buddha. But Buddha will leave town if you don't give this present. Buddha said, I got better things to do. I'm going someplace where people give me who they really are. I'm going someplace where I'm really dangerous. It's too safe around here. These people are, like, totally, everybody's in their box, being really nice. Nobody's, like, coming to me and challenging me. Nobody's, like, I have no adversity here. I'm, like, wilting. It's so easy here. Oh, bullshit. We challenge you all the time. Oh, bullshit. I mean... Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

[91:58]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_83.33