first in the usual way of morning service and then in Chinese. Invoking the presence and compassion of our ancestors, let us recite their names. YAKUSA NIGEN DAIYO SHO, NANDONG SHO DAIYO SHO, TOSAN RYOKAI DAIYO SHO, UNGO DOYO DAIYO SHO, TENWA DOHI DAIYO SHO, ROHAN KANCHI DAIYO SHO, RYOZANEN KAN DAIYO SHO, TAIYO KYOGEN DAIYO SHO, TATSUI SEI DAIYO SHO, FURIO DOKAI DAIYO SHO. the outstanding way that you show.

[01:03]

In the name of Shakyamuni, I worship you. [...] Good. So the first thing is I want to say thank you

[02:26]

Thank you for allowing these Dharma events to happen these mornings during Seshina and also particularly I'm sorry if this has cut into the kitchen breaks at all because I'm going over time, I'm sorry about that, I'll try again earlier today. Okay, let's try and go earlier today. What has been happening these mornings is something that I see as in the realm beyond self and other and good and bad. I don't think anybody knows what's going on, really. Or maybe some people here do know. And you can go right ahead and know.

[03:36]

I don't. But I do know that nothing like this happens anyplace else that I know of. And for the rest of the year, such opportunities as this sustain me and Only at Tassajara is it possible. I wish it was possible in other parts of Zen Center, and once in a while it is, maybe for a moment or an hour here or there, but then the empire strikes back, if you know what I mean. So somehow we've gotten by with this and I'm grateful to all of you and to the empire for laying off for a little while. So we come to the, in a way we come out of the dark ages of Soto Zen now and back into

[04:49]

kind of the renaissance you might say, literally, with this ancestor. He was a pioneer too but it's a kind of renaissance of the school. He didn't have any trouble finding any successors, he got a lot of them. I remember when Suzuki Roshi taught me how to do morning service and how to bow during the names of the lineage. He said the usual way is to bow nine times for the seven Buddhas up to Shakyamuni and then for Vasumitra and then for Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu and for the sixth pioneer, no, for Bodhidharma and then for the sixth pioneer and then Dungsan and then Fuyodokai, Furong Dalkai and then Dogen.

[05:58]

He said, but you guys are too big so I want you just to bow seven times. I said, why don't you just skip Vasumitra and bow down for Bodhidharma and stay down until Daikon Eno, that'll be seven bows. Why do you choose Fuyō Dōkai? Is it just an even spacing?" He said, oh no. He was a great Zen master. I at that time never heard of him except on the list. Since that time because of new translations and other esoteric research I've gotten to know him a little better and he is one of my favorites now. I'm glad we reached him. Maybe you can feel how much I like him. The master's name was Dao Kai.

[07:06]

Even as a youth, he enjoyed peace and quiet, secluding himself on Mount Yiyang. Later he traveled to the capital and registered at the Taishu Monastery where he examined the Lotus Sutra and became a monk. He called on Tosu Icheng at Huaihai Monastery. He said, the words of the Buddhas and pioneers are like every day tea and rice. Is there anything else apart from this that they have to help people?" And Tosu said, you tell me. Does the emperor or the sovereign in her own domain rely on the authority of the ancient emperors

[08:21]

Shu and Yun. As Daokai was about to speak, Tosu hit him in the mouth with his whisk and said, the moment you intended to come here you deserved a beating. And Daokai was awakened. Another way to translate that last statement by the teacher was, instead of the moment you intended to come here, another way to say it is, the moment you gave way to thought, you immediately deserved 30 blows. So then Dhalki bowed several times and started to go.

[09:36]

Tosu said, come here a minute, sir. But Dhalki did not turn around. Tosu said, did you arrive at the realm of no doubt? Dhalki covered his ears with his hands. He stayed with Tosu and became the head cook. One day Tosu said to him, taking care of the kitchen isn't easy. And Daokai said, not at all. Tosu said, do you boil the gruel and steam the rice? And Daokai said, the assistants sort the rice and light the fire. The workers boil the gruel and steam the rice."

[10:43]

Tosu said, "'What do you do?' Dhākāi said, "'The master, in his compassion, has let him go.'" One day, while Dāghāi was standing attending Tosu, they walked around the vegetable garden. Tosu handed Dāghāi his staff and Dāghāi took it and followed. Tosu said, this is how it should be. Dalki said, I don't consider improper to carry your shoes or staff. Tosu said, there is another walking with us.

[11:49]

Dalki said, that person doesn't take orders. Tosu let it rest. That evening, he said to Dalki, We haven't finished our earlier talk." Dhakai said, "'Please, teacher, say something.' Tosu said, "'The sun comes up in the morning, the moon rises in the evening, the master lit a lamp.' Tosu said, "'Your actions are not futile. Dalki said, if I am with you, this is how it should be. Tosu said, in whose house are there no servants? Dalki said, the master is getting old.

[12:55]

It won't do to be without them. Tosu said, you're so kind and obliging. Dhalki said, it's my duty to repay kindness. In this way, he thoroughly and meticulously clarified the great matter. The meaning of the question, the words of Buddhas and pioneers are like ordinary rice and tea. but is there anything else apart from these to help people? Do Buddhas and pioneers teach anything else apart from their everyday lives?" So, Bhakkai stayed with Tosu and

[13:58]

kept working out this original question in all these different situations, turning it again and again with each opportunity, steeping himself with this question. he had in Great Awakening, but still the original question, he meticulously and thoroughly clarified it, meticulously and thoroughly clarified the great matter of this question. The commentary here is very nice but I don't want to get into it too much.

[15:16]

But again, I see Dao Kai pointing to the same question of all these people pointing to this question, again, is the life, the everyday life, the mind of the Buddhas what's their life, what's that place where they live?" And in this story he was still looking over there a little bit and the teacher said, again, you tell me, does the authority of the sovereign depend on the ... does the commands or the orders of the sovereign depend on the authority of some ancient kings or somebody else. And again Dhakai turned away a little bit or came from a distance or approached that place. And the teacher slapping him in the face with the whisk

[16:38]

And saying what he said, somehow Dhakai stopped approaching. He stopped clinging. He stopped coming from a distance. He became truly one-pointed and entered. And he entered. Then the teacher asking from a... then he left. The teacher tried to get him to come back, but he wouldn't come back. He learned. The teacher called to him. He wouldn't listen anymore. There's nobody else anymore. There's nothing else. But then through their relationship, through the duality of their relationship, he tested it and tested it again and again. to see if he could be caught, if he would slip back into believing in duality.

[17:49]

So he got involved in duality after duality after duality all day long to deepen his freedom. So I'll let it go at that. I'll let it rest at that. And if it's okay, move on to the ninth precept. But this story can be brought back at any time. If you need it, if you want it, we can use it. your question this morning and the rest of the day about whether a miniature alive or dead. And I thought of this expression in the story I was telling, that the soviets can zoom around and get information from around and survive.

[18:58]

I think there's something about that. I'm not sure, but it means like a king or a queen, an emperor. Reign means like a period of leadership or government reign. Sav, I think, means like of itself. So sovereign can be male or female. It says emperor but I said sovereign. And those emperors, Shu and Yun, are the same ones that, you know, in the case that Thayo is probably going to use in his shi-so ceremony where it says, accomplishing the work of great peace has no sign.

[20:06]

The family style of peasants is most pristine, only concerned with festal songs and village drinking, or village songs and festal drinking. What do they need to know of the benevolence of Shun, of the virtues of Yao, these ancient emperors? Peasants don't need to know about that stuff, they just take care of their daily life. How about the emperor, does he need to know about these other emperors in order to carry out his work? When you hear that question don't get caught. I didn't get so much into, which comes up in discussing not praising self while slandering others, is the point that when Buddha was teaching even while he was alive and people were sitting like shoulder-to-shoulder right in the Buddha's presence, different

[21:37]

students had different understanding of what he was doing. So different commentators differ in their understanding of Buddha-Dharma. And with regard to the Buddha, the Buddha of the individual vehicle does not reach the realm of the Buddha of the universal vehicle. And even what Bodhisattvas are is not the same in different schools of Buddhism. Therefore this work on the precepts suggests that even though people call these precepts, Buddha precepts or Bodhisattva precepts, they don't think, we should not think that these are the same among various teachings.

[22:43]

So because of this we propose to offer a meaning of the precepts as well as the way they are practiced based on the Zen school. Not to say that this is better or worse, but you should be clear that there is a difference. And the Zen school does not depend on the interpretation of sutras but is dependent on the Dharma of correct transmission of Buddhas and pioneers. Rather than transmitting scriptures or rules or interpretations of scriptures or rules, the way of practicing these precepts is by transmission, by transmission of the way that these people lived, which is a different orientation from some other schools.

[23:51]

So now the ninth precept. I'm not sure what's the best way to proceed. One way to proceed is to go right through and then to try to deal with what happens after we go through it. Another way is to prepare you a lot and then go through it because this commentary is from, you know, almost 700 years ago and different culture and all that may be kind of hard to hear. But I guess I think that if I don't go through it, if I approach it directly from the modern point of view or from the point of view of being here with you, that it would be difficult to go back through it. So I think for the sake of just letting you feel what those early

[24:57]

Japanese masters felt about these precepts it'd be good to go through it and then give a more modern treatment. So I'm somewhat warning you that some of this stuff may be hard for you to hear and I beg you to somehow open your heart to it even so and feel the pain or whatever you feel. I'm not asking you to believe it. So here's the ninth precept which is called not being angry. We sometimes as you know say not harboring ill will and I'm already starting to give a modern commentary. Another modern translation is not indulging in anger, or you could say not holding to anger.

[26:12]

It just popped in my head one time here at Tassajar. in the early days. It's hot here in the summer as some of you know and the kitchen's hotter than some other places and the cooks are sometimes hotter than anything. And one time one of our cooks got really hot and really angry and Suzuki Roshi was talking to him and said, well it's okay that you're really angry. And you can stop it too, just stop it. But it's okay. Anyway, there is this thing about being angry and then there's this thing about holding it.

[27:19]

I think it was my first practice period, I practiced being angry and I think for for maybe, I don't remember, I thought it was for about two months. Every morning at 3.30 I got angry and I stayed angry until work meeting and then I stopped. I didn't turn it on, it came on automatically, but I turned it off at work meeting because I had to start talking at that point and I didn't want to hurt anybody. But I was just, every day, from there to there, I was angry. I studied anger. Well, not completely, I studied it. And after that, I really had a different understanding of it. Being able to turn it off at work meeting was quite... was a big part of the understanding. I harbored it for hours and studied what harboring was like.

[28:33]

And I've told you also that sometimes Suzuki Roshi manifested anger. But one of the things we noticed about the way he did it was, he would like, it wasn't exactly like he blew up, it was more like he came on fire, and like flames came out, and then they died, and then he was just, there's nothing left, it's gone. But he did get angry and he beat people up. It's one of the advantages of being tiny and having giant disciples. You can beat up as hard as you want and they think it's kind of cute. And he had big disciples. Richard Baker was big. And Peter Schneider was tall and I was pretty strong.

[29:36]

And Philip Wilson was, you know, I told you about Philip Wilson, he was one of the apes in the Planet of the Apes. And he used to help Suzuki Roshi work in that garden, just tossing those rocks all over the place. And one time Philip, maybe I shouldn't say, cross that out. One time somebody was a shuso at Tassajara, the head monk. And while he was shuso, he hid in his room under the covers listening to music on his headphones. And Suzuki Roshi found him and beat him up, beat him and beat him and beat him, screaming at him, what are you doing? You are the most terrible disciple. But even with my bad back, I'm still too strong to be able to beat people up.

[30:48]

So, if I live a long time and get really weak, I'll be able to live a long time, get very weak. You think I'll live a long time? You'll get very weak. I'll get very weak. So, anyway, that's kind of an accidental modern commentary. Here's what Dogen says. Let's say, here's what Bodhidharma says first. Self-nature is subtle and mysterious. In the realm of selfless dharma, not contriving reality for the self, is called the precept of not indulging in anger. Do you know what contriving means? Contriving means to plan, to plot, to devise.

[31:55]

Do you know what plan, devise, do you know what devise means? To plot, to invent, to manage. Those are various meanings of contrive. To contrive reality for the self. Well, to not contrive reality for the self is called not being angry. And Dogen says, neither withdrawn nor set forth neither real nor unreal. Here are oceans of luminous bright clouds. Here are oceans of magnificent solemn clouds. Neither withdrawn nor set forth, neither real nor unreal.

[33:03]

Here are oceans of luminous clouds. here are oceans of magnificent clouds. Kyogo says, among the ten grave precepts, oh another warning I'll give you is that he jumps around here, he goes, he jumps levels a lot. So it's kind of a roller coaster of what level he's on. But I'm just going to read it, you know, the way, it's kind of the way it is, certain parts I'll edit. Among the ten grave precepts, there should not be light or heavy, but this precept especially should be observed. Among all wrongdoing, anger is the most difficult to guard against in advance because it comes so fast. Anger occurs in between master and servant, or master against servant, in servant against master, in parent against child, in child against parent, in student against teacher, but of course never in teacher against student.

[34:22]

Just kidding. Couldn't restrain myself. even in realms of daily life where resentment need not occur, still anger temporarily arises. To dissolve this should be easy. This being so, by the way dissolve this being should be easy means anger should be easy to dissolve. And in the definitive Vinaya, definitive Vinaya of the Bodhisattva it says, that anger is the most destructive of greed, hate and delusion. Anger is the most destructive and the easiest to stop. And attachment or lust is the least destructive and the most difficult to stop. So anger among these three is the easiest to stop.

[35:27]

He said it should be easy to dissolve it. This being so, even if a moment of anger arises, we should quickly repent and apologize in the next moment. Even if the other person does not ask for an apology or apologize herself. Not to dissolve anger upon hearing words of good intention is to violate the precept. If you continue, you will just accumulate unwholesomeness. Anger is an extreme wrongdoing that destroys all that is good and creates all kinds of wrongdoing. The Buddha said, even if you create merit and accumulate it like Mount Sumeru, if you arouse one thought of anger, all the merit will disappear. From this we clearly know

[36:30]

that we can tell good persons from bad persons by whether they are angry or not. For example, someone to whom we teach wholesome things and he becomes angry and does not follow them, and who, if we were to teach him evil things, would not get angry but would happily follow them. In such a case, we know this person is evil. On the other hand, those who wish to align themselves with good and will follow the good when taught the good, and shun evil when advised against it, are good people. My late master Dogen always taught, it is a foolish thing to try to guide those who do not wish for good and abhor evil. When I heard this,

[37:32]

I was not in a position to guide people, so it was almost as though I had not heard it at all. And I would say at this point that I also, you know, hearing this kind of talk I feel kind of queasy myself. If I had to choose with who to hang out with, those who thought they were right and those who thought they were wrong, I guess I'd choose to hang out with those who thought they were wrong. But at the same time, when you get in a position of guiding people, I think you have a different attitude about these things and so when you hear this kind of talk and you're not in that position, it feels different to you than when you are. I think I share his feeling of when you first hear that kind of talk you think it's for somebody else and you don't really ... it's almost like not hearing, it's like, oh what's that got to do with it?

[38:43]

But when you have the responsibility to guide people then this statement, it is a foolish thing to try to guide people who do not wish for good and abhor evil, makes some different sense. And he said, however, now I am deeply impressed by its truth. In this regard, my late master's words should be received with particular attention. Indeed, those who are evil in body and mind will question good when we teach good and they will not get angry with evil when taught evil. Both anger and not anger are unacceptable to the Bodhisattva. when they are based on dualistic attitudes. For those who are evil in body and mind, good is a wrong condition. Good becomes anger. Because evil is not a wrong condition for them, evil becomes not anger.

[39:49]

In this way it is clear that anger and not anger for those who are evil should not be accepted. And I thought of that example of these parents who gave their little boy the gun that his brother used to kill himself with for Christmas. And if you would suggest to those people or ask them if they thought that was a reasonable thing to give to their son, they get angry at you. If you tell them that that was a good present to give to their son and they should probably give him something else like that, they wouldn't get angry at you. They'd think you really knew what was happening and it was a good idea. And do you have any guns yourself to give? We'd like to get them. Now when I think about this, I get angry at those people that I never met.

[41:02]

And if I feel self-righteous when I talk like that, you maybe get angry at me. You should. And if you didn't, you're evil. I'm not saying I got that. What are you laughing at? He's sharp. Okay, well, that's an example. There are those who get angry when taught evil and do not get angry when taught good. They are angry when they should be angry and not angry when they should not be angry. Anger and not anger coming from good people are both good. In the everyday life of Buddhas and pioneers to open the gate of sweet dew and step forward and backwards is understood as anger and not anger.

[42:21]

For this reason it is said neither withdrawn nor set forth, neither real nor unreal. And because this principle is boundless, here are oceans of clouds, oceans of luminous clouds, and oceans of magnificent clouds." I wanted to read this story because It's about Yun-Yan's pal. Remember that story of Yun-Yan sleeping on the ground and his brother Da-Wu comes up and says, you're too busy? This is a story about Yun-Yan, but it's also a story about is it alive or dead? And it's related to Angus, I thought it would be apropos. Hopefully you'll see so. Da-Wu, he's not in our lineage.

[43:27]

Exactly, but he's like one of our great uncles, one of our uncle pioneers. So Da Wu was the teacher of Jian Yuan and Da Wu and Jian Yuan went to the house to make a condolence call. This is called Da Wu's Condolence Call, it's case 55 of the Blue Cliff Record. secure and intimate with the whole of reality, one obtains realization right there. In contact with the flow, able to turn things around, one assumes responsibility directly. Dawu and Jian Huan, Yiran,

[44:29]

I went to a house to make a condolence call. You know what a condolence call means? It means to express your sympathy when someone died. To go and say, oh, he's dead, huh? Did you say, is that so? You got the subtlety, didn't you? So the student, you're on, hit the coffin. These are not the guys doing bite over, right? They come in, the student goes, alive or dead? Dawu said, I won't stay alive, I won't stay dead.

[45:41]

Yiran said, Yiran said, tell me right away, teacher. If you don't tell me, I'll hit you. Dawu said, you may hit me, but I won't stay. Your aunt hit him. Later Dawu passed on. Your aunt went to see Xueshuang and brought up the foregoing story. Shran said, I won't say alive, I won't say dead.

[46:45]

Yiran said, why won't you say? Shran said, I won't say, I won't say. At these words, Yiran woke up. One day, Yuran took a hoe into the teaching hall, into the Dharma hall, and crossed back and forth from east to west, west to east. And Chuang said, what are you doing? Yuran said, I'm looking for the relics of my late master. Chuang said, vast waves spread far and wide.

[47:46]

Foaming billows flood the skies. What relics of our late master are you looking for? Yuran said, this is just where I should apply my effort. He got angry when he should get angry. in the everyday life of Buddhas and pioneers to open the gate of sweet dew and step forward and backwards is understood as anger and not anger. Both anger and not anger for these people is good. Good people means those bodhisattvas who understand, who realize, dual attitudes who realize the wholesome heart of Mahayana.

[48:52]

When we say sentient beings receive Buddha's precepts and immediately enter the position of all Buddhas, their position is the same as that of greatly enlightened ones. Truly they are children of Buddhas." How do we maintain this precept of no anger? It is said, quote, when we receive Buddhist precepts and acquire our Bodhisattva name, we should arouse a compassionate and obedient mind, unquote. What is called compassionate and obedient mind, unquote, is the mind of the oneness of body and mind. Is the Bodhisattva's wholesome heart based on non-dual views, The Indra's Net Sutra says, abiding continuously in compassion, unquote.

[50:00]

The Avatamsaka Sutra talks about mind only and the Lotus Sutra talks about true marks. The words are different but they all indicate the compassionate mind and the not angry mind. Therefore, it is said equal position. as that of a greatly enlightened one. This world is called the Saha realm, which means the realm requiring patience. The name of this world is Saha, and it means the realm requiring patience. The Buddha, the master of the teaching, is respectfully called capable of patience. In Japanese, nonin, like Daikon Eino, E means wisdom and no means capable. Nonin means capable of wisdom, capable of patience.

[51:05]

This is not anger, which is compassionate patience. That is why when we receive this precept, we are Buddha, we are Bodhisattva. The vow of this precept is to guide all sentient beings and help them enter Buddha's way. This world is a Saha world. The teaching master is capable of patience. And the precept is not anger and being patient. Those who maintain this precept are the same position as that of a great enlightened one. because Buddhas and Bodhisattvas always go forward and backwards within this patience. Neither going backwards or forward is outside of patience. So it is said, neither withdrawing nor setting forth. At this point, we go beyond the Dharma of duality, such as false and real, gain and loss, and become one Buddha body.

[52:19]

which is the entire world being capable of patience. All sentient beings on earth attain the way at the same time. Sentient beings on earth are positioned equally with the Greatly Enlightened One. Yet, this is just studying the principle through words. What anger or not anger is there beyond this? in the everyday life of Buddhas and pioneers. Open the gate of sweet dew and step forward and backwards is understood as anger and not anger. Understand that the person in the world chewing up a walking stick without crushing it is not anger.

[53:20]

And that's shouting one shout for the great assembly is anger. So the kitchen heard the commentary. By the way, I was saying stuff mixed in with it, so it was a little bit modern stuff in there. A little bit of psychology here. you'll excuse me, the paramita, the perfection of patience has been brought up now and so what's part of what's involved here is the willingness on our part to work with our own emotions, our own pain and this in turn

[54:26]

will allow us to work peacefully with others. Usually we don't like to work with aggressive people because we feel, perhaps, that they will not give us an easy time. They appear to be a threat to our un-Bodhisattva-like tendency to get pleasure and security for ourselves. We tend to view aggressive people as the problem. If they hurt our feelings, we feel resentment and do not want to forgive them. We think that their aggressiveness is the problem rather than our withholding. are holding back relating to such people.

[55:32]

This perfection of patience has to do with giving up our egocentric view of blaming others and to use the energy of aggressive people for transformation rather than holding back from it to protect ourselves If we do, all their energy is just something that makes us sick. But if we don't hold back, we can use their energy to benefit all beings. I don't know exactly who is aggressive, but part of what happens if two people are holding a jump rope and swinging it, that can be considered aggressive. The energy of that rope spinning around in the air could be something that would threaten your safety and your pleasure.

[56:44]

But you could use that energy, you could jump into it and use it. I've been saying this thing about, I can't stand it, or the ego can't stand it, and it's like, and also, and I think that's right, the ego can't stand it, so it's like the ego is the part of the psychic field that wants to contrive, wants to contrive things for the self, wants to manage, wants to plan. The ego is the identity at the control panel which has no control.

[57:52]

In the operation of subject-object relations, in the dynamic of objective knowledge, there is some feeling like something's coordinating it all. It's perfectly coordinated. Being coordinated perfectly, the mind is operating and coming up with objects all the time. But the idea of a self that's coordinating it or that is managing it, that's the egocentric ego. If the ego doesn't really think it's managing this, But perhaps they're just sitting at the control table, but there's no connections between the control table or the control panel and what's happening. You can sit there if you want. The ego does not understand or not understand.

[59:01]

It's not the job of the ego to understand. The understanding is done by consciousness. And what consciousness understands is consciousness, but not as an object. of itself but through the objects it sees, it understands. Ego is the thing that wants to get responsibility or credit for coordinating operation. So again the job of the ego is to give up the illusion of control, to give up the illusion of managing the scene, and yet go through the illusion of managing this thing. Bodhidharma says not planning, not managing for the self is what this precept is.

[60:24]

It includes not planning not to get angry, yes. Rather than planning to not get angry it has to do with using what's happening, working with what's happening. Does it include not planning, not planning? Does it include not planning, not planning? Does it include not planning, not planning? I don't know what that means. Can you plan to not plan? Yeah, you do plan to not plan. No, you can plan to not plan and you can also plan to not be angry, you can do those.

[61:31]

But this precept is not planning to not be angry, that's not what it is. This precept is working with planning to not be angry and this precept is working with being angry. This precept is working with anger and with the attempt to destroy anger. But those aren't the precept. The precept is being willing to work with yourself while you're angry and while you're trying to stop yourself from being angry. In other words, work with your emotions. Yeah. Irascibility. Have anything to do with what? Anger? Well, it's a kind of a synonym for anger. Well, irascibility, I think, means that you're easily irritated. That you easily feel pain or you're susceptible to getting angry.

[62:39]

Irascibility means easily angered, I think, usually. Yeah. I'm trying to get a definition. You said the thing earlier about that it's easy to get rid of anger, easier to get rid of anger than it is to get rid of lust. I said the sutra said that. Yeah, the sutra did. Yeah, I'm like insane. But when I think of this, I think of greed, hate, and delusion, or lust, aversion, and delusion. Fine. And I think of, well, wait a minute. I'm trying to get a definition here. And lust and aversion as being sort of opposite sides of the same coin. Whereas anger seems to me to be something different, related to... I don't have to be angry just because I work. I don't want to touch shit, but that doesn't mean I'm angry at the shit.

[63:40]

be something else and I'm trying to find out if we're talking about the whole scope of negative or if we're talking about something different from the version when we talk about anger. Well I'd like to make it ... in the Abhidharma there's three words for anger but in some way I feel that regardless of which definition you use it is sometimes appropriate to do any definition So for example, turning away from shit is sometimes appropriate, sometimes it's not. Being angry at shit is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. So regardless of whether you say aversion and anger have a nuance, and they're different, I agree they do, but either one of them could be appropriate or inappropriate. And there's sort of, there's three words, one would be maybe aversion, it's hard to, anyway, There's pratiga, krodha and himsa.

[64:44]

Himsa means you want to hurt, you're violent, you want to hurt. Pratiga is often used for anger, it can be anger at wholesomeness or unwholesomeness. If you're angry at wholesomeness then that anger is considered to be unwholesome. If you're angry at unwholesomeness then that anger is not considered to be unwholesome. So there can be, you know, aversion, disapproval, you know, or wanting to hurt, that range of things. Wanting to hurt probably maybe is never good. But aversion and hatred and anger, I don't say they're the same thing, but I think you could use any of those words here if you want. In other words, Buddhas could be avoiding things that are sometimes good, and avoiding things is sometimes bad. The point is, is the avoiding based on dualistic views?

[65:45]

If aversion is based on dualistic views, it is wrong. If non-aversion is based on dualistic views, it is wrong. If anger or anger are based on dualistic views, they are wrong action. But anger or anger, aversion or embracing based on non-dual views can be good. are good. Of what? Based on non-dualistic views. Based on non-dualistic views? I thought that story was an example. He got angry at his teacher based on the drive for truth. And what's that anger? See, I guess that's where I… Well, what do you want to call it? Strong, strong response. Punching his teacher, strong response? Oh, that one. I'm sorry. I was on a different stream. Punching the teacher. I don't know. The way the story sounded, it almost sounded like he decided to do something and then did it.

[66:49]

And showing it, actually, too. It didn't seem like anger. What would you call it? What emotion would you call it? It's a pretty stupid thing to do. Well, anger always has stupidity at the base of it. If it's dualistic. Anger seems to be something out of control. Anger is something out of control? Something that once you let it happen, it doesn't seem like a contrivance. Anger seems like something that comes up and then acting on it. That's right. Anger, lust and confusion are not under control. That's why in Mahayana we don't look at these precepts as recommending you try to control yourself. That's not what these are about. They're not about control. If you refuse to practice Buddhist meditation, then okay, they're about control. If you're not going to practice Buddhism, then please don't get angry. Because if you're not going to practice Buddhism, you are an evil person.

[67:51]

And then it would be better if your evil didn't get in the form of attacking people and so on. But if we're talking about Buddhism, which we are here, about practicing Buddha's way, then it doesn't say try to control yourself. It says, as a matter of fact, that among all the kinds of wrongdoing, the most difficult to control is anger. So therefore, forget about that, basically, and get to the core of the problem of anger. The core of the problem of anger is that you are trying to control. Egoistic manipulation is where harmful anger is coming from. to have a slight contrivance or devising or planning of your life, to believe that the ego actually is controlling and managing, that attitude is where anger comes from. Destructive, evil anger and evil lust and evil confusion comes from that kind of attitude. So what does it mean not to be angry according to this precept? What is this precept pointing to when it says not angry?

[68:53]

It's pointing to not planning, manipulating, contriving, devising for yourself. If you're not doing that, then you're not violating this precept. And if you're not doing that, and you are in rage, it is good. And what will you be enraged of at most? Dualistic thinking. And all the things that emanate from that, you'll get angry about. or anything that's interfering with your pursuit of realizing non-dual thinking, with all beings, you will get enraged at. And you should, because you're getting enraged at blocking of compassion. Also, you will not get angry ever at non-dual activity, even if it's totally, you know, shit.

[69:56]

Even if someone vomits in your face, coming from non-duality, you'll feel its nectar. If you're coming from the not manipulating, not devising place, if you're coming from that precept and you see someone else coming from that precept, what they give you is sweet dew and you do not get angry. However, if you're coming from the place of non-duality, and the other person isn't, you'll get angry. And vice versa. If you're coming from a place of manipulating and trying to control yourself not to get angry, or not to get lustful, or to be smart, or to get rich, or to protect yourself, any kind of egoistic holdout like that, not embracing all beings, no matter what you do from there, It's hopeless.

[71:03]

It's wrong. It's anger or not anger. If it's anger, it's wrong. If it's not anger, it's wrong. Okay? You were okay a little while ago. Are you still okay? You've been out of town. Do you really not want to get into it? Do you not want to get into it really? We won't force you, this is a voluntary thing. I have an interesting question but I can't do it right now. When you're ready. Yeah, I can do it. Okay. I was okay with you all the way to the idea that a non-dualistic person, a person coming from a non-dualistic place, would get angry at

[72:03]

I don't trust that or the stories that say that. It seems to me that if you were coming from the non-dualistic place, or when you come from the non-dualistic place, or even when I come from the non-dualistic place, that Now, I'll read this part again, okay? Where is it? Because Buddhas and Bodhisattvas always go forward and backwards within this patience, neither going forward and backwards is outside patience, so it is said, neither withdrawing nor going forward. At this point, we go beyond the duality of false and true gain and loss.

[73:22]

We become one Buddha body. Now, the entire world is capable of patience at that point. So let's look at this case. First of all, look at the easier side of it, okay? Namely, that when you're coming from a non-dual place, for example, when my daughter is born, that's close enough for me. You know? And then, when Chivamma is in my face, it's not something to be hated. It's not something to be loved. It is not anger. It is not non-anger. Either way. Now, what about if I see in the person I feel at one with? I see dualistic activity. What does anger mean in that case? It means compassion.

[74:23]

It must be compassion. That's what it means. So is it compassion? Well, if it's anger, then it's compassion. The compassion of the Buddhas is anger and not anger. As it says here at the bottom, you know, it is anger and not anger. What I don't trust there is it feels like an excuse for a person who is supposedly a Buddha acting angry, being angry, and not being a Buddha at that time. That's what it feels like to me. That kind of... It doesn't... It feels like an apology rather than... You shouldn't... This is not to be applied to other people. Okay. This is to be applied to myself. But it's coming to me as a truth from words or something else.

[75:23]

I'm being told the truth. It's supposed to be the truth. You're being told a meditation instruction. Okay, then I'm not going to argue at all. Well, you have to decide whether what you just said was... Do you want to practice that meditation, though? That's the question. But anyway, all this stuff can be abused and people who get into positions of leadership in spiritual communities then can beat people up and everybody say, well, they're enlightened so they can do that. That's not what it says. You yourself or I myself still have to somehow turn around, look directly within to this place without a hair of intellection and find that place of non-duality. And when we find that place of non-duality, that's our job. Then, there's only one thing to get angry at in this world, is things that cause people to be miserable.

[76:30]

And the source of misery is this dualistic thinking. So when you see someone involved in manipulating and managing their life for the sake of the self, in other words, violating this precept, and acting from this dualistic position which is causing them and others misery, you can get angry at that. You don't have to get angry at it. You must be patient though. This is patience. Anger in that case is simply something helpful. It should not be... The judge of it is does the person wake up? If they don't and they're hurt, it's a mistake. It should work. Again, I use this example many times, when my daughter runs in the street, I express anger. That's not impatience, that is to protect her.

[77:31]

And she wakes up and she doesn't go in the street anymore. Okay, I've always argued with that in my mind, but that's not anger. Okay, it's not anger then. But it's loud. Okay? Then you call it not anger and then you say, okay, that's an example of not anger coming from non-dual place. Okay? But if that same not anger was coming from a dualistic place, I would say that it would be harmful. Well, it's totally a dualistic event. Anger is totally about a dualistic event and it's totally about protecting the self and protecting the ego. then your expression at that point is not going to be harmful, which anger is. Okay, I'd like to go and do something here and then have more conversation. Just go back and do the beginning again.

[78:33]

Neither withdrawn nor set forth. Okay? This is another instruction for you to look at with your own self. Now, part of what's going on here is a play on the word Tathagata. Tathagata means You know, the thus-gone one or the thus-come one? You can read it either way because it could mean tatha-agata or tatha-gata. One means the thusness which comes back and the other one means the thusness which goes, so going forward or coming back. But it's neither one of those things, really. That means when you're angry or not angry. there should not be any going forth or going backwards. In other words, you should be still. That's another thing you have to use for yourself. Is there stillness there? Not being angry comes from stillness.

[79:34]

Comes from peace. And again, if there's any dualism in your mind, like managing yourself or something. If there's any dualism, there's not peace. And what comes from there is harmful. If there is non-duality, there is peace. There is not going forward or backwards. That's what this precept is about. If you are angry, you have to judge for yourself whether you went forward or backwards. If you're leaning forward or backwards, you can feel that. In other words, you have to judge whether you have outflow around the anger. You can feel afterwards, you quiver, you shake, you regret, you doubt. When you're on the mark, you're certain. And everybody else is too. But it's hard to hit that exact place. But that's what we're talking about, that unmoving, not going forward and not going backwards in your anger and also your not anger.

[80:46]

When you hear somebody say something and you don't get angry, also are you not going forward or backwards? If you're going forward and backwards when you're not angry, then probably you're not getting angry at something maybe you should get angry at. Not for sure, but it might be the case. You don't know, you don't know. Maybe you should be angry at this and you're not. Similarly, if you get angry and you feel this going forward or backwards, you're probably not following this precept. We have to judge us for ourselves. Now, someone else who's practicing that may be able to help us. If they're doing it at the same time and they're with us, they can say, are you going? What's happening there? They can coach us to look at ourselves. But in the end, you have to look at yourself. You have to say, okay, I finally didn't go forward or backwards. At that moment I wasn't angry, or I was.

[81:49]

But even though I was, by God I believe that I didn't violate that precept, that I was practicing the precept of not being angry while I was angry. This precept of not being angry is about Buddhas being angry and not being angry. At the end it says, to chew up a walking stick without crushing it. Take a walking stick, chew it up without crushing it. That's called not being angry. To shout one shout for the Great Assembly, that's called being angry. You know, if one of us makes the shout for all of us, A shout that frightens demons in ten directions. It's so wrathful that it wakes them up to their own nature. That's being angry of a Buddha.

[82:53]

It's a Buddha's anger. It's compassion. It's patience. But that Buddha has to judge for herself. Did I go forward or backwards? Now, if there's another Buddha around, they can discuss it. You know, I think you went a little forward that time. Oh, no, I didn't. Well, now, let's hear you prove that you didn't. Let's hear a little bit more about how it was for you. And I can say, well, it was like this, it was like that. Well, see, right there. How about that? Well, no, back and forth. They can work it out. That's what the Buddhas do with each other. They check out, they're not coming and not going with each other. But most of all, first of all, be honest. Do you really think you didn't go forward and backwards? Most people, if you ask them, they'll say, well, actually, I did go forward a little. Well, there you go. We have nothing to talk about. When you think you don't go forward at all or don't go backwards at all, then come and discuss it. Then you have to worry a little bit because now you think you made it. But before that, you're right.

[83:54]

If you don't think you did, you didn't. If you think you were wiggling, you're right. When you don't think you're moving, when you think you've arrived at peace, when you think you've realized non-duality and you're not moving anymore, then get some reflection. But if you think you're wavering around it and you're angry at that time, then you confess, I was angry. I broke the precept. But basically I broke the precept because I was wiggling. I wasn't in my dharma position. Next one, neither real nor unreal. Okay? There's those two things again. Emptiness and the constant appearance of things that are empty. Reality of emptiness and the unreal Coming up all the time It's neither one of those It's neither emptiness nor dependent co-arising. It's the dynamic between them. Are you living there? Do you know the non duality between the world of illusion and the world of emptiness?

[84:56]

Is that where you are? Are you standing that? If so if anger comes It's Buddha's anger. It's not breaking his precept. It is compassion If you aren't standing that tension and you're copping out to one side or the other, well, better not get angry. But don't think that not being angry is going to work either. Check it out for yourself. If you're okay, let's hear about it. If you're not, keep working until you get to that place, until you're settled with that place. Here are oceans of illuminated clouds here are oceans of magnificent clouds. Evil one? Yes? Pardon? Yes. Yeah. Okay. That's about the next one.

[86:02]

The perfect timing. Perfect timing. Charlie. These are the bright clouds, okay? The bright clouds, the radiant clouds of anger. Anger, in Greece they had a god of anger, remember? His name was Ares, Mars, a red hot god. They also had a god of sex, lust, Aphrodite. I remember when I was reading the Iliad, And what's her name? Helen was tromping around her house at Troy and she said, Oh, immortal madness. She was talking to Aphrodite. Lust is an immortal madness. It's never going to die. And also Ares, Mars, the god of war is never going to die. We should have an altar.

[87:04]

to lust and hatred and confusion. Is there a goddess, a god or a goddess of confusion? We should have in our hearts, we should have shrines or altars to these gods and goddesses and we should worship them. Not align ourselves with them but worship them, you know, I recognize, I praise your immortal power. do wither with age. Hmm? They do wither with age. You wither. And then they come to visit and you think you're alive again. Alive or dead. Withering. I know withering. Yeah, I know that one. Angry. Old people get so angry they croak. The walls won't hold that fire anymore.

[88:06]

Old people get so lusty they try to eat big pieces of steak and choke. In Japan, lots of old people die on New Year's choking on mochi. They're not all old. Well, they're not all old, it's true, but particularly a lot of old people die choking on mochi. But they're not all old. Some young people eat so much mochi they choke too. But they usually don't laugh when the young people die. It's this real sticky gluey rice... It's thicker than peanut butter, but peanut butter can get you too. In other words, take care of your anger. As soon as you notice anger, it's not anger anymore. It's immediately not anger. Being aware of anger is not anger. It's awareness. It's a radiant cloud.

[89:15]

You can turn anger into radiant clouds through awareness and then the anger is transformed. You use that aggressive energy of yourself in your meditation and you convert it into light. and then you can use the aggressive energy in others to convert into light. Other people's anger towards you can be extremely beneficial. It may not be good for them if they're coming from a dualistic position, but if you're in a dualistic position and someone who's either in a dualistic position or not, expresses anger towards you, this can be extremely help you, snap you out of it, get you back home. Which is what anger outside is telling you, get back home. This whole universe is organized simply to get you back home.

[90:18]

All anger is telling you where to go. It should be respected and cared for with appreciation and patience in yourself and in others. This is luminous bright clouds. That's what there are if you can not come forward or backwards, not veer towards the real or the unreal. for the Tagata, that's the way it is. And then, Oceans of Magnificent Clouds, Akinroshi has this nice quote by Blake about this, which I'm changing a little bit. We are admitted into heaven not because we have curbed, you know what curbed means?

[91:25]

You know, on the edge of the street, there's a curb. Curb. So you put your car on the curb or if your dog wants to shit, you make the dog shit over by the curb. So curb means restrain or control. Okay? We are admitted into heaven not because we control ourself or contrive or curb ourselves or govern ourselves.

[91:49]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ