I'm kind of tired, but I think once I start talking, I'll revive. Yeah, that helped. So there's this project of saving, of helping everybody, of being devoted to helping everybody be happy in this world. And in order to work on this project, What happened? What did you say? What did she say? I said, I'm in Latin. Okay, so in order to do this work, one of the things that the Buddha suggests is that the people who are doing this work What do we call those people?

[01:03]

These enlightenment workers, they should produce a thought which has no abode. The Diamond Sutra says that. Or another way they say it is the bodhisattva should produce an unsupported thought. Unsupported thought. A thought of no abode. Okay.

[02:10]

A thought which is not supported by sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or mind objects. Thought which is nowhere supported. This is the kind of thought that an enlightenment worker should produce. So, producing such a thought is in a way kind of not... How do you produce such a thought, right? What kind of thought is that? You can't say what kind of thought it is because as soon as you say what kind of thought it is, it's supported by whatever you say about it. Say, well, it's a green thought, or it's a smelly, it's a rose-smelling thought, or it's a rough thought, or it's a warm thought, or it's a cold thought, or it's a... It's unsupported.

[03:23]

What kind of a thought is that? Well, you can say that, but still, that's still supported by being a spontaneous thought. So, the bodhisattva is supposed to launch herself out into, basically out into vast space and do her work, like a windmill. So if I suggest that to you, you may be able to listen to that a little while, but after a while it gets to be kind of like, anyway, I understand it's difficult to live in an empty space with no support. So I'm using these stories. They're stories about how to go off into empty space. But empty space does not mean there's nothing in empty space.

[04:27]

It's not like incoherent empty space. It's empty space only in the sense that everything's possible and there's no kind of like limited, fixed things out there. And the diving board... or the launching pad into this practice of perfect wisdom is the ordinary world. The launching pad to produce this unsupported thought is the ordinary world.

[05:29]

You can't give rise to this thought You can see it up here if you want it. You can't give rise to such a thought from mid-air. You give rise to this thought from the ordinary world. And you have to put your feet completely on the mud of this world in order to produce this thought. Yes? Give rise from the ordinary thought. Does it arise from the ordinary thought? Well, it arises from ordinary thought, but everything else, too. And that's why it isn't supported by ordinary thought. But if you avoid ordinary thought or don't accept ordinary thought, such a thought will be supported by your avoidance of ordinary thought.

[06:31]

Now, could you follow that? That was the first little trick that happened tonight. I didn't get it. So you know the image of the lotus? Not a very good lotus. The lotus coming up out of the muddy water. You know that image? The lotus rose up on muddy water. The lotus is the life of the bodhisattva, is the life of compassion. It grows in muddy water. It has its roots down in the mud of the water. And when we live in the mud completely without any resistance, an unsupported thought is born and it produces this flower. Flower is not just unsupported thought, it's unsupported thought in the world.

[07:34]

How does this happen? Could it be lack of dance or some artistic thing? Sure, yeah. You don't have a word for what's happening, but something does happen. And the person who hears it might not have the same word, even if ordered, even if they sense it. Yeah. But the key is that in the mud an unsupported thought is born. And again, if you avoid being in the world, then the thought you produce will be dependent and will depend on avoiding the world. So completely being willing to be in the mud with no with making no deals with the mud. That's an unsupported thought. So let's just stop there.

[08:43]

Ring a bell or something. The way you first described it, where you said it wasn't supported by smell or sight or sound. Right. But if you're just seeing the mud without making any deals with the mud, you don't feel the mud. That's right. You smell the mud. That's right. That's right. Okay. So just stop there for a second. That's right. Okay, let's just sit on that for a while. Everybody got that? So an unsupported thought does not mean you don't just sit in the mud and feel the mud. This is warm mud or cold mud, or this is gooey mud or dry mud. It doesn't mean that. As a matter of fact, it very much means, it means actually that you are completely in the mud you're in. That's what it means to produce an unsupported thought.

[09:45]

To produce a thought which is supported by something That means that you do make a deal with the mud. You think, okay, I'm going to produce a compassionate thought or a wise thought or a stupid thought, and therefore it's going to be like this. Rather than, I'm just here, and that's it. And that's all I know. And I don't know anything more than that. then from that kind of resignation to your circumstances, an unsupported thought is born. If you try to produce an unsupported thought with any predicate or any agenda about what an unsupported thought would be like, that's supported by that. But if you simply accept your circumstances, then whatever you think is unsupported. And what do you think when you just accept your circumstances?

[10:50]

What kind of a thought is that? It's an unsupported thought, but anything more you could say about that kind of thought? It's not a thought. When you're sitting in the mud, you're just sitting in the mud. You're not doing anything but sitting in the mud. You're just staying close to the mud and not doing anything. That's an unsupported thought. You completely abandon everything other than being where you are. That's an unsupported thought. Doesn't mean you don't know that it's red or it's blue or it's hard or it's soft or it's thinking of you. Doesn't mean that. It means just precisely those things are those things and that's it. And that's called no thought.

[11:50]

And that's an unsupported thought. And that's the kind of thought we should produce. But it's actually not a production at all. It's actually simply that you're just what you are. That's all. And you let reality do the work. That's the same as the fact that A is A is why A is not A. A being A is an unsupported thought. So the place to set forth into the realm of not A, which is, again, the realm of not B and not C and not anything, including not anything.

[12:55]

In other words, vast openness. The place to set forward from that is from A, B, C, and so on. In other words, you step forth from the world that you're in. That's where you go forth from. Or, in terms of this case, you go forth from the skin bag. So how are you doing? Is that okay? Okay, well. A is A. Why is A A? Because A has some characteristics. That's how you can tell it's A, right?

[13:57]

Well, let's stop now. Everybody got that? Do you agree with that or not? Huh? What? Any problems with that? Lloyd? That's our problem. is that good that it's arbitrary it's a fact okay A is you're Lloyd because of why why are you Lloyd and what else there's more than that that makes Lloyd huh beard glasses would you Yeah, but now you're Lloyd because you don't have the glasses on. And now you're Lloyd because she has the glasses on. So you're Lloyd because of a whole bunch of stuff, a whole bunch of things, but none of which are Lloyd, right?

[15:02]

Glasses aren't Lloyd. Beard isn't Lloyd. But all those things together are how we can tell what Lloyd is. Part of the way we can tell you're Lloyd is when you take off your glasses. That helps us. Yeah, well, you know. If you took off your glasses and we saw that actually those were, you know, actually had a picture of your eyes painted on them, we'd know that you were faking. So, everything about you, all these things lead to you being this thing we call Lloyd, this A, right? But that means that you depend on all these things. And with all these things, you couldn't be Lloyd. Are you there? I'm running it through. Yeah. It could be that Lloyd. I mean, that one. Well, whatever, any moment when we have a Lloyd on our hands, it's due to various causes and conditions, right?

[16:04]

Yeah. There's ways we identify, can tell you from Pat, and so on, by certain characteristics. Okay? Okay. So he depends, the thing called Lloyd depends on a whole bunch of stuff, so there isn't something that's Lloyd without using that stuff to identify him. So that's the way what A is. You know you can tell what A is by the very characteristics that make A. So A is not a thing which is self-apparent, is self-existent. It depends on other things. Therefore, there's not really something there called A. The very fact that A is conditioned is precisely why A isn't there. So that he would be a product of societal circumstances, including being an individual, without necessarily saying that he also is an individual.

[17:06]

I don't know what you're driving at, but, I mean, aside from that last point, I agreed, but I didn't know what you're driving at by saying he's not an individual. So the fact that he is, despite the fact that I'm a product of my circumstances, despite that I'm still an individual, that makes the other... That makes the other what? That makes the other A. I can't follow it. You wrote down A. A equals A. Therefore, A is not A. Because A is A, A is not A. Yes, so the two first days, which are not similar, there is an individual, but he is always functioning, being for the circumstances that make him up.

[18:20]

Everybody is a product. Everybody is a product? Yes. But not always. But not only? What else? Pardon? Because he grows in himself too. He grows in himself. So everybody grows in himself, one entity of himself and all the effects of... I don't understand. All the way over to here.

[19:37]

Do you understand? Do you? Moving on. Yes. Would aid being not aid be equivalent to saying aid has no own being, has no self-essence? Yes. It's made up of all non-aid. Yes, it's the same, but I'm stressing now that the fact that A is A is the reason why A lacks inherent existence. That point. The fact that Jim is Jim is precisely why Jim is not Jim. That's the reason why you're not.

[20:39]

And that's because the fact that you're Jim... is because you're conditioned. So the minute we name anything, that's the reason it can be that thing. Yes, and the fact that it's named is precisely why it's not what it is. So the job is for things to be themselves. That's our work, is to celebrate that fact. That's our practice. Without emphasis. Without emphasizing it, yeah. Just do it. Okay. Why is it that because Jim is Jim, he is not Jim, I still haven't made the connection with the thing he is being, and therefore it's not me? Do the various things that go to make up Jim lack any of existence also?

[21:52]

Yes. And yet it's those very things that make Jim who he is. Yes, that's part of it too. But that just makes it all the more wonderful, but we don't need to bring that in yet, actually, to prove this point. Usually A is A and also A is not B, right? How do you tell that A is not B? Because A has different characteristics from B. That's how you tell the difference, okay? So how do you tell that A is A? Because the characteristics that this is A because of these characteristics. Since it depends on these characteristics in order to be what we call, the thing we call A, therefore there's nothing there called A, except these groups of characteristics. There's nothing there which doesn't need these characteristics in order to establish itself. But can't A just be the group of characteristics?

[22:55]

Yes. And the group of characteristics, each one of them, none of them are A, right? None of the characteristics, would you say, are A. And the sum total of the characteristics certainly isn't A either. Because you don't think that A is just a sum total of characteristics. You think A is something besides the sum total of characteristics. That's what we mean by A. Like we think, okay, we've got dark brown hair, dark brown eyes, round face, overland sweater, two hands, Do you count emotions too? Yeah. Confused. Confused. Smiling, nodding the head. None of those things are Marissa, are they? Altogether, are they something? Yeah.

[23:55]

Is that something, something in addition to all that stuff? No, it's just putting all the stuff together. But people do think there's something in addition to that, actually. Don't they? They think it's Marisa. Plus, you know, not just add the name in there, too, that the name's there, too, that there's something that actually forms when all those things are added up. That's what people think, that there's something there. Don't they think that, don't they give it to Marisa just to, me, this is the coming together, all these different elements, um, that are working together to produce thought and speech. But they say, we say, we have the habit of saying that is a thing all by itself. Without realizing that it's made out of a component. Well, even if you realize a component, you still sort of map something, some self onto all that. You make it a unity. You make it a thing.

[24:56]

We do that. That's called A, or Marissa. And how does that connect to because A equals A and it's not? Because I am... Because if you look at how it is that we come up with that you're Marisa and you're not, you're not Sonia. There's a thing called Sonia which is not Marisa. We can tell this B, A does not equal B. How? Because of these causes. But we think there actually is a thing called A there and a thing called B there. Right? That's the ordinary world. A does not equal B. Isn't that the world we live in? Marisa is not Sonya. Okay? Now look at Marisa. The fact that you're you is due to these causes, these components, which you just admitted to.

[26:02]

Okay? you and other people put onto all those components something called A. The fact that that thing forms there, the fact that A is A, right there is where you see that A is not A. If we never say there was a thing there, that if we only say there was a coming together of various causes and effects, that's all we ever said, we wouldn't have an A in the first place. And also, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between A and B. But we think there's a thing there which is not that thing over there. In other words, we also don't see a third thing, which is the two of you. We separate these two things. We make this one thing and this another thing. We do that. That's the ordinary world, right? But if you look carefully at how we make this thing, and suddenly we make all the components come together into a thing which you care about and I care about, right there in the fact that we do that is precisely where there's something which is not a.

[27:21]

And it is precisely and exactly in noticing how A is A and how A is nothing else but A that you realize that A is not A. A is not A is included in the fact in exactly the way you conclude that A is A is exactly how you realize A is not A. Which is the same to say, in order to be free from A, you have to completely get into how A is A. And do nothing more than that. However, to do nothing more than getting into how A is A means that you would not add a thing called A to all the causes and conditions that are there. That the name the hair color, the sex, the age, the shape, all these things, you would not add anything to all that.

[28:29]

And if you didn't add anything to all that, if you actually got into all of what makes A, you would notice that there was one thing missing, namely A. So precisely how you make A and precisely what you think makes A and what you use to make A, all that is exactly what implies that there isn't an A. That's why you go forth into vast space from that. Is that so? You can say that again. There's one person who's not laughing. See this? Watch. Watch. Look at that.

[29:51]

Wow. That's a dumb line. No matter what happens, wake up. Rev, would it be wrong to say that A equals self in what you were just saying? Yes, it's wrong in the conventional world to say A equals self. That's a violation of... But the fact that the self is the self, it's correct to say the self is the self. It is incorrect to say the self is not the self. It is incorrect to say that A is the self. unless that's just a code for A. But the self is the self, and A is A, right? But the step beyond this is the fact that the self is the self is why there is no self.

[30:58]

Which is to say that no matter what happens, it's okay to wake up. You do not need to have some special circumstances to be released. Any occasion is okay If somebody slaps you in the face or spits in your eye, it's okay to wake up. You don't have to have some special occasion. Why? Because when somebody slaps you in the face, A is A at that time. And therefore, A is not A. The fact that the self is the self is why there's no self. That's an unsupported thought. Now here's the introduction.

[32:01]

A gourd Are you okay? The gourd floating on the water. Everybody know what a gourd is? Would somebody tell that guy what a gourd is? You've got to be out of your gourd. Now does everybody know what a gourd is? So you put a gourd on the water, all right? Yeah, I'm sometimes about gourd. Everybody got their gourd on the water? Are you going to go into going out of your gourd?

[33:11]

Okay, happy class. Are you ready? Are we ready? One, two, three. Gourd in the water. Push it down and it turns. A jewel in the sunlight. It has no definite shape. Is that what we've been talking about? Do you see that, Marissa? Poetic way of saying the same thing. A gourd in the water. Push on it and it turns. You don't understand what I mean by pushing on it? A is A. Push on A is A. It turns. Okay? A jewel in the sunlight.

[34:14]

It has no definite shape. Every facet that it has makes it what it is, and that's why it isn't. It cannot be attained by mind-blessness, nor known by mind-fullness. Immeasurably great people are turned about in the stream of words. Is there anyone who can escape? So, immeasurably great people, like Zhaozhou, right? Jiao Jiao is turned about by words. Here he is sitting there, and this monk is going to come up to him and talk to him now, okay? He's going to get turned about. So don't feel bad if you get turned about. Matter of fact, if you don't get turned about, are you playing Jiao Jiao's game? May I put this on you?

[35:33]

Yes. If we just didn't put it on my raucous suit, that would have been sacrilegious. Yeah. Okay, Monk Ass Jojo. Does the dog have Buddha nature or not? Zhao Zhou says, yes. Since it has, why then is it, why then in this skin bag? Zhao Zhou says, because it knows yet deliberately transgresses. I think it's easier to start with the other one.

[36:48]

Is that okay? A monk asked Zhaozhou, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Zhaozhou said, mu, or no, doesn't have. Okay? Monk says, all sentient beings have Buddha nature. Why does a dog have it on them? Zhaozhou says, because it still has karmic consciousness, or impulsive consciousness. Say impulsive consciousness for a year. Karmic, active, active consciousness. Yes. Now, when Zhaozhou says no, it doesn't have it, you could say that this no, or this mu,

[37:58]

in the Moo that Buddha nature declares itself to be. Buddha nature says, Moo. Who's talking? You ask, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Who are you talking to? Who are you asking? Are you asking Buddha? Are you asking a person of immeasurable greatness? What does he say? If you ask a person of immeasurable greatness, does a dog have immeasurable greatness? If you ask a Buddha, does a dog have Buddha? If the Buddha says, Moo, what does that mean? Pardon? Moo.

[39:00]

Pardon? Maybe it means even that Zhaozhou is not. Yeah, maybe, but I told you Zhaozhou is the Buddha nature. So if the Zhaozhou is the Buddha nature and you ask Zhaozhou, does a dog have Buddha nature, what does Zhaozhou say? He says, woo. Yes? Perhaps it could mean things aren't that, that isn't the way things are. It could mean that. Might it also mean, if you ask Buddha, does a dog have Buddha nature, if the Buddha says that isn't the way things are, what does that mean? That's the way things are. Buddhists say the way things are, right? Even if they say that's not the way things are, that's the way things are, right? So Buddha nature declares itself to be mu.

[40:06]

Buddha nature says, mu. This is the non-dual level of the story, okay? The other level of the story, which we did before, remember, it's on tape, I think, is if you ask Zhao Zhou who is somebody like us who has Buddha nature or not, we have Buddha nature or not, right? As dualistic beings, we've got it or we don't. That's the dual world, okay? You've got it or you don't. This is the non-dual level. You ask Zhao Zhou, does he have it? He doesn't say, yes, I have it, or no, I don't have it. He says, no, I don't have it. Which means, Zhaozhou declares himself to be, no, I don't have it. Which means, Buddha nature says, mu. Do people ever talk like that? Nothing but, nothing but. Do you ever talk any other way than that? Yes, you do. Sometimes you say, no, I don't, and you mean you don't have it.

[41:11]

rather than that which doesn't have or not have it. Buddha-nature does not have or not have Buddha-nature. That's what Buddha-nature is. Right? What was Buddha-nature again? Buddha-nature is that which doesn't have or not have Buddha-nature. So Buddha-nature, if you ask Buddha-nature, do you have Buddha-nature or not, Buddha-nature in this case says, It's like Jaoja was spitting out a sunlit jewel. Jaoja was sparking, sparking out Moo. He said, Moo. This is the Buddha nature declaring itself to be Moo. How do you feel about that kind of, that way of being? This is an unsupported thought, all right?

[42:16]

You have no support for talking like that. It's comforting. Well, good. It's supposed to be. It's supposed to be comforting. Also, the yes is supposed to be comforting, too. But anyway, it's mu. But it's not just that the answer mu is... it's not just that it's comforting, it's that you can be awake on that question of does a dog have Buddha nature or not. But if people ask you that question, oftentimes you don't feel permitted to be awake on that question. Why? Because even immeasurably great people are turned about by the stream of words. So when people say, does a dog have Buddha nature or not, you get caught by it. You get turned about And you feel like even if you say mu, if you think that mu means it doesn't have, rather than that's a mu which Buddha nature declares itself to be, you're caught.

[43:27]

Anybody want to ring a bell now? Then Buddha nature declares itself to be quiet. Not just to be quiet, to be quiet. I see that still as a form of thought. We know, but we did the caught part last two weeks ago. That was caught. Caught was, okay, we're living in this world. Somebody says, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? What they're interested in is which category does Buddha nature come in? Does it come in the caught, in the existed category, non-existent category? That's what I want to know about. I'm caught, and I'd like to know, is Buddha nature caught too? Okay, perfectly reasonable question for a caught person to ask, isn't it? Is everything stuck like me, or is there something that's free?

[44:32]

And if there is something that's free, then how would you answer my question? Would you answer my question by doing something which is totally a total freak-out? That would show it was free, wouldn't it? No, it wouldn't. Can it be so free that you'll answer my question just like a person who was stuck would answer my question? Namely say, okay, I'm asking you now, is a dog free or not? You can say, it's not free. It is free. Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Is Buddha nature that kind of thing that falls into these categories? Well, I hope not. So what would your answer be? Yes, it has. Or no, it doesn't have. In other words, it's so free, you can talk just like it was. It was totally trapped. That's how free it is. It can be completely trapped. In other words, Buddha nature can say ain't got none. Buddha nature can say got some.

[45:37]

But when it says ain't got none, it doesn't mean ain't got none. It means what it really is is talking like that. What it really is, is talking like this. Do you believe that what it really is, is talking like this? Do you believe that or not? Or maybe this can't be it, but it can be this. Do you believe that it could be this? The logic of you being you is not you says that it could be like this. If you being you was really just you, then it couldn't be this. But you being you includes that it could be this. Yeah. Could it be this and you don't even like it? Definitely. Definitely. Compassion Compassion

[46:43]

reaches everywhere. There's no place it doesn't reach. There's no place it doesn't reach. There's absolutely no place it doesn't reach. If it doesn't reach some place, whatever doesn't reach some place is something different from compassion. But you have to fan it. Yep, but you have to fan it. That's how it reaches everywhere. And how do you fan it? How do you fan it? You think like this, that's how you fan it. The thinking you're doing right now, each one of you is thinking right now, that's how you fan Buddha nature into your life right now. It's not naturalism, because you have to fan it. Naturalism would be when the teacher is fanning himself, And the monk comes up and says, the nature of wind is that it reaches everywhere, and it's constant, so why are you fanning yourself?

[48:15]

He says, you understand that it's permanent, but you don't understand the meaning of it reaching everywhere. What is the meaning of it reaching everywhere? You fan yourself. Naturalism, you wouldn't even have to fan yourself. Well, pure nature is unconvulsions. Then we shall, if we're going to know, know. Buddha nature is not unconditioned. It's not unconditioned. If Buddha nature was unconditioned, then it would be a supportive thought. Well, I think it is unconditioned. But I think it manifests unconditioned world as conditioned. Now, when you think that it's unconditioned, is that something which you're pretty sure about? Is it something which you can let go of? Good.

[49:19]

Glad you'd admit that. It's too close. So the monk says, all sentient beings have the Buddha nature, so why does not a dog then? Now, on the non-dualistic level, what's his question? On the dualistic level, he says, okay, I asked you if it had it or not, and you say it doesn't. So if it doesn't, well, how come it doesn't? Because Scripture says that all beings have it, so why doesn't a dog? On the non-dual level, what's this guy saying? Jiao-jiao has just spoken. Moo. Buddha nature has just declared itself to be moo.

[50:31]

Moo. The dog also has proclaimed itself to be Moo. Anybody want to say Moo here? You people said Moo. How is this Moo doing? Who said that? Who said that? Stand up, please. Oh, you. Oh, hi. Okay, so the monk says, all sentient beings have the Buddha nature. Why does a dog have none? What's that question? If it's not asking, does it or does it not have, what is he saying?

[51:36]

Huh? Why not? Say, I have it. I'm just this way. Well, I think he's asking, do you practice after you've been in one place? That was the first question. Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? That's the first question. Does a dog have Buddha nature or not means, does a person who's enlightened keep practicing? Now the second question means, if there were no sentient beings, would there be Buddhas? Yes. I copied Dogen. Hold on. Yeah, yes, I mean, yes, uh-huh, that's right.

[52:40]

When you have something, you are not afraid. And, yeah, when you have something, you are not afraid. When you have good nature, you are not afraid. When you have Buddha nature, you're not Buddha nature? When you are Buddha nature, you don't have Buddha nature. Right. That's right. Got it. Right. Okay, so, karmic, so then he says, so he says, all sentient beings have the Buddha nature, so why isn't it dog? Okay. Then he says, because it has karmic consciousness.

[53:48]

Yes. It has karmic consciousness means that it exists for the sake of all sentient beings. Karmic consciousness is life for the benefit of all beings. Do you believe that? What? Why not? What? You just said that? Fine. That's okay. You can talk. So what do you think? You people have karmic consciousness, don't you? Is that for the sake of all beings? Is that what it's for? As a supportive company. What? It is as a supportive company. Okay, but as a supported thought, your karmic consciousness, what would you say, when you say as a supported thought, you mean the karmic consciousness is a supported thought, or you mean you're answering the question as a supported thought?

[55:04]

Okay, you feel like that's a supported thought? Now, I can see that. Okay, now you've got a supported thought, right? Why is it a supported thought? How is it a supported thought? I asked the question, and you answered, and you said, as a supported thought. I asked you, do you see karmic consciousness, which you observed somewhere around there, do you see that as for the sake of all sentient beings? And you said, yes. Right? And then you said, added as a supported thought, I see that. In other words, answer my question in this language, okay? Now, why did you think that was a supported thought? I mean, how did you think that was a supported thought? Because I had an idea about it. Are you following this?

[56:13]

Okay. In other words, what this conversation could be, a regular dualistic conversation, right? I say to you, can you see your thinking as for the sake of, or as existence for the sake of all sentient beings? Perfectly reasonable English sentence, sort of. And you say yes, right? But then you said, as a supported thought. In other words, this conversation seems to be like supported thought to you, right? Kind of based on reason, in a way, of your vow, right? And then you thought that was a supported thought. Now, again, let's look at how you think it's a supportive thought. Tell us again how it's a supportive thought. Well, I don't know that I have a different answer.

[57:36]

It doesn't have to be different. It can be the same one. I just want everybody to listen to what you say, and I want you to listen too. How is it a supportive thought? Because I had an idea about what that experience is. Okay. So it sounds like you're saying that if you have a thought, which has an idea about what some experience is, that that's not a supported thought. And that is a supported thought, okay? So that means you think that an unsupported thought wouldn't have an idea like that. Is that right? Well, I guess, I guess maybe it would. You guess, you guess maybe what would? Um, that, uh, Well, now it's a swamp, but anything is conditioned.

[58:43]

Right. Anything's conditioned. Sure, when it's supported or not supported, right. In other words, it's kind of hard to tell whether something's supported or not supported, isn't it? Because any way you would tell would be more, just more support, right? Wouldn't it? Some way you could tell that it was an unsupported thought. That's just an unsupported thought, wouldn't it be? So, the conversation we just had How could you disqualify that as unsupported thought? It would be hard to disqualify it, because unsupported thought can be anything. That's the nice thing about unsupported thought. Now, how about a supported thought? Could that be anything? Yes. Anything could be a supported thought.

[59:47]

And unsupported thought would be totally unhindered in that way of thinking. Can I say something? Yes. The karmic consciousness is compassionate because it's karmic consciousness, but it's not karmic consciousness that allows us to be free. Would you say that again, please? Karmic consciousness is compassionate because it's not karmic consciousness. It's like 80 is 80 because it's not 80. So within karmic consciousness, there is the freedom to be free from karmic consciousness. That's why karmic consciousness has liberated all beings. I can't remember the exact... What was it karmic consciousness did? For the sake of all beings.

[60:51]

Yes. I don't know why he says it, but anyway, karmic consciousness must be for the sake of all beings. It must be. If it isn't, then that's just bad news. But for a bodhisattva, karmic consciousness is the only way that they function in the world. There's no other way that they can live for the sake of all beings. But that doesn't mean that if we have a conversation like that, it doesn't make sense. And I can't talk to you about it. It doesn't mean that unsupported thought suddenly doesn't make sense. But it does mean that unsupported thought can totally jump out of what you expect. But it doesn't mean that it's going to violate the way you think, usually. As a matter of fact, what it does is it empowers the way you usually think.

[61:56]

It makes you dare to let the way you think be the Buddha nature. It lets you allow the Buddha nature to express itself through your mind, through your life. Which means that you start from the point of view of your thinking as it is, is perfect. And all you got to do is stay very close to it. You can't be the slightest bit away from it. You got to be completely there with what you're doing and not mess with it. But when I ask you something about can you see your karmic existence or your karmic consciousness as for the sake of all sentient beings and you say yes, you can say that. You don't have to say no or maybe or be quiet. You can say yes. You can also say no. However, if you say no, you're going to be kind of unhappy about that.

[62:58]

That's the nature of not... If you don't think your thinking is for the sake of all beings, you're not going to be very happy. But that's still perfectly, you know... I mean, that's the way your mind's working. Compassion reaches into your mind when you don't believe that your mind is for the sake of all sentient beings. But when you do believe that your mind is for the sake of all sentient beings, do you feel the compassion? What? What he said, no? No, I think he was the happy, I think he was, you know, what do you call it? Epic making happy. That happiness, when he said mu, it's been the good news, you know, one of the main good news things from Zen Buddhism for 1500 years. That's why people are going around saying mu all over the place. Now, some of them don't understand. They're totally miserable when they're saying mu. They completely misunderstand the point. But even if they weren't saying mu, they would too.

[64:00]

It's just that now they have a kind of way to concentrate their misery. Before they were saying mu, they were just vaguely kind of unhappy. Now they can say mu all the time. Mu, mu, mu, mu, mu. I want to get something out of Zen practice. So they say it, and they say it, and they say it. Fine. Eventually, their mu will be Zhaozhou's mu. Zhaozhou's mu, they'll say. This is the Buddha nature's mu. This is Buddha nature coming through the fiery lips of Zhaozhou saying, Mu, actually he said Wu. If you say anything long enough, eventually the Buddha nature will be allowed. Because if you say anything long enough, you're going to suffer so much that you will renounce everything and you will drop everything And you'll realize that the Buddha nature has been coming through you all the while, including Mu.

[65:07]

But you don't have to say it. You can do it right now if you want to. It's okay with me. You don't have to suffer anymore. But it's out of realization. I think the whole point is... It's up to you. You tell me. The mind has to have a realization of the unconditioned. You tell me. And for the unconditioned can be appreciated. You tell me. Is this realization? I can't tell you. Well, tell me. You're the only one who can tell me. After you tell me... I'm disagreeing with your teaching. You're not disagreeing. Yes, I am. No, you're not. Do you tell me is it realization? Is this realization for you right now? No. Okay, well, there's nothing to talk about then. Come back later. I think there is, because I think I... What have you got to talk about if you don't have realization? You should just be quiet and sit until you have realization. I think we all should. Yeah, so everybody else has got realization here but you, right? No, absolutely not. You don't either? I don't have it either.

[66:14]

But I was being quiet. Then there's no problem. He brought up realization. So if you've got realization, we'll talk about it. If you don't, then there's no problem until you do. Unless you get discouraged. Are you discouraged? I think we can only realize the unconditioned manifest through the conditional world if we're acquainted with the unconditional. Otherwise, I think it's naturalism. He cannot be acquainted with the unconditioned. I think he can. As soon as you're acquainted with it, you're just a condition. I think Dogen was acquainted with it. Well, he says he wasn't. Yes, he did. He said he dropped body and heart. That's not acquainted with anything. I believe that. He said it wasn't. He said being acquainted with the unconditioned is not an experience. I believe a lot of people were acquainted with the unconditioned.

[67:15]

Well, there's no acquaintance, though. There's nobody there to be acquainted. That's right. Right. And there's still one. He says he wasn't, though. He said it's not a consciousness, but he had realization. He said realization, but that's not an acquaintance. There's no acquaintance there. There's no experience there. Total intimacy. Okay, total intimacy. Okay, fine. So what's the problem? I think we're not pointing at the right thing. I think we should be pointing that we can only say these sentences from the point of realization. And just to say that a simple conversation without having that realization, as is the root nature, doesn't do us any good because it just further confuses us. Say that again. We're not doing that again. We're putting one head on top of ourselves, we're putting two heads because we're trying, I think, talking about saying that a normal conversation...

[68:18]

is the unconditional coming through doesn't mean anything unless we are intimate with the realization. Right. So I think it's further confusion to suggest that just appreciate the fact that a normal conversation is the unconditioned. Because it doesn't do anything for us. I didn't say that a normal conversation is the unconditioned. You said it was the Buddha nature. I said the Buddha nature expresses itself. I didn't say the Buddha nature was unconditioned either. I said the Buddha nature expresses itself through your life. That's what I said. What's the problem with that? I think it was I'm uncomfortable with the direction of the emphasis here.

[69:26]

What's uncomfortable about it? I think koans and things that Dogen wrote came out of a realization of the Buddha nature we're talking about. And they're urging us to realize that very thing. Yes. Rather than jump to the after effects of everything as ordinary. And I think maybe that should be more on having the realization. You know, becoming intimate. Right. Not further down the road. Right. Saying that everything you do is... So how do you get intimate? How do you get intimate? Well, you don't have an idea that our normal consciousness is Buddha nature. I think you dropped that idea. You mean you have unsupported thought? Touch me?

[70:29]

You don't have an idea that ordinary consciousness is the Buddha nature, right? You don't have that. You don't say. No, but that's what I'm suggesting being emphasized tonight. And that's where I have all this stuff come up. But you don't say this, right? You don't do that. Right, you don't. That's right. So what do you do? You produce an unsupported thought. How do you actually produce an unsupported thought when you have some ordinary consciousness? How do you do an unsupported thought? What do you think I'm saying? I'm saying A equals A. This is an unsupported thought. I'm not saying A equals Buddha nature. I'm not saying that.

[71:37]

It does, but I'm not saying that. Well, what if you turn that... I'm saying, I'm saying A equals A, right? This is conventional reality, right? This is also an unsupported thought. Just, it's completely ordinary, nothing special about that. So, this is called intimacy. A equals A. Your practice is A equals A. If you concentrate on A equals A, if you get intimate with that ordinary fact, Daryl is Daryl, That is an unsupported thought. That will bring you into intimacy with this, which equals, which leads you to A does not equal A. And what I've said is that it should be turned around. A is not equal to A should come first in our practice. Then we can fully... Okay, you're saying that the Diamond Sutra says A equals A. The meaning of that is A does not equal A. Therefore, we say A equals A. The way in Buddhism is to start with this first.

[72:46]

Because if you start with this, you're starting with non-conventional reality. That's our given condition. We don't have to start with that. That's where we are. That's what I'm trying to tell you. That's my teaching. You start with where you are, not where you're not. Nobody has to tell us that. We already know where we are. I find... Well, I find that you're a perfect example of why you refuse to stop where you are. You refuse to stop where you are. That's your problem. You won't do this. You want to skip over this and go to this. That's your problem. And you're not the only one. That's why I'm not saying A equals Buddha nature. I'm saying A equals A. And who here will do that? Will you do that? Have you done this? I don't have to try to do that because that's where I am. Are you there? Do you really settle into that? Have you settled into this? Have you or not?

[73:47]

Answer the question. I think if I answered the question, I would only be thinking. Well... To me, I'm still interested in... It's realization. Realization will happen to you when you settle, as soon as you settle into this, this will happen to you. And that is all you got to realize. These together is the Buddha nature. Almost no one I ever meet, including myself, can do this, can settle into them simply being themselves. But this is the practice. To study Buddhism is to model A on A. We don't skip over this and say this is already done. We study this. And if you study this, you'll forget this and you'll forget that A equals A and you won't remember that anymore. And that will be your realization. When you have realization, please come and tell me about it.

[74:50]

But don't skip over this just because you're already there. Of course you're already there. Of course you're already there. Everybody knows that. You know that. But have you actually accepted that completely? That's the question. If you have, then you've done your job. And just sit there and wait until you have realization. But who has done this? Who has done that? Who can just be themselves? Who can be an ordinary person? That's right. Only the world-honored one can be an ordinary person. Because everybody else thinks they got more advanced things to do. So I don't say, I don't say that A equals Buddha nature. It does, of course. I don't say that. That's already in the sutras. The sutras don't say A equals A even. Everybody knows that, but people don't accept what they already know. But if they would accept what they already know, then the sutra says the meaning of A equals A, harmonies of Buddha fields as no Buddha fields are taught by the Tathagata.

[76:00]

Therefore, we say harmonies of Buddha fields. Minds of sentient beings, minds of sentient beings, as no minds of sentient beings are taught by the target, therefore we say minds of sentient beings. This is what we have to accept. We have to accept the ordinary world. We have to live in the mud. If you live in the mud, you'll drop the mud. What about them? No, they aren't. does it say that in the beginning what excuse me I can't remember I can't quote it to you but my recollection when all things are buddha dharmas then there's people then there's A then there's B then there's not A then there's not B but thank you Daryl And good luck in the mud. Yes?

[77:02]

So ASA, the whole is equal to the sum of the pi. The whole is greater than the sum of the pi, so the whole is less than the sum of the pi. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm trying to use rational terms like . A equals A. To me, that means the sum is like the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. And then when I take the step up... Just a second now. You're saying A equals A is the whole is equal to the sum of the parts? Yeah, or A and what you were talking about. No, A equals A is the whole equals the whole. That's what A is. When you say, when you see A, it means that you have, at this point, you do not yet realize you're actually projecting something onto the sum of parts.

[78:05]

You're making the sum of parts into an A. Okay? And that equals A. Okay, now what's the next step you want to do? It's greater than the sum of its parts. Okay. Well, I think that they say the whole is greater than the sum of the parts is what most people do, namely that they add a self onto the sum of the parts. That's what most people do. There's something over and above the sum of the parts, a thing there, that hovers up over the sum of the parts. That's A. So that's there too. That A equals A is part of that whole is greater than the sum of the parts. But if you study the whole, which is greater than the sum of the parts, if you study that for a long time, you'll realize that there is no thing greater than the sum of the parts. And then you'll be released from this wonderful thing, which is greater than the sum of the parts. which is this wonderful thing which is greater than the sum of parts is what we're walking around protecting all day long.

[79:12]

Yeah, that's right. That's the cause of our suffering. And if we would just study, stay close to this sum of parts and this adding something greater than the sum of parts, if we would stay in that mess there long enough, the pain of that would cause a renunciation of this this binding, it would end. When the renunciation got strong enough, we'd realize that actually the whole thing's been dropped anyway, and you don't have to do anything, it's already been dropped. And then we'd have a realization, and we'd go tell somebody about it, and then they could say, oh, you've got a realization, huh? Great. But the realization doesn't have to have any special signs. It could be just completely ordinary conversation. Don't expect it to be something fancy.

[80:16]

But we have a lot of work to do to just actually accept our situation. Yes? Is this realization, when it finally happens, is it ever happening? Is it permanent? No, nothing's permanent. Can you have moments of realization? Yes. And then fall back into the not being awake. Yes. But realizations do have an effect on your life. So you're changed from then on, but you can also be lazy afterwards. People do have realizations and then have problems afterwards. And you can use realization then as a kind of standard to scrub the rest of your experiences from then onward. But you can also be lazy afterwards and not do your work for a while. All kinds of patterns are possible. I have a question about the koan.

[81:30]

The part that you mentioned about karmic consciousness and how... Well, my question is, his answer to know the dog does not have good in nature was to think that because it has karmic consciousness. Is that answer exactly equal to the answer he gave before he said yes, which is... On a rational level, it's the same. Or on a dualistic level, it's also the same. And on a non-dual level, it's the same too. But for different reasons. A different reason. In the non-dual level, the reason is this reason. A equals A, therefore A does not equal it. That's the reason. On the dualistic level, the reason why A equals A is because it's just saying A in a different way.

[82:35]

That's why it's saying the same thing. To say that because it knows, it deliberately transgresses, is the same as karmic consciousness is... is for the sake of all sentient beings. Same thing. But on a non-dual level, both are equally free. Both statements are equally free. What I'm saying is that Buddha nature expresses itself through this story so that we may settle into our experience and by settling into our experience be released from our experience. So this story is saying no matter what you're doing it's an opportunity to realize the Buddha nature.

[83:37]

Whatever you're doing is an equal opportunity to realize the way. And it's saying that if you want to realize the way, you must never do it aside from this skin bag. You must never separate from this skin bag if you want to realize the way. If you try to separate from this skin bag, you won't be able to realize the way. It's not that the skin bag is the way. It's that willingness to be intimate with the skin bag will realize the way. And that if you're not willing to be intimate with the skin bag, if you're not willing to live in the mud, you won't be able to realize the way. That being willing to abide in your phenomenal expression culminates the qualities of thorough exhaustiveness, which all the Buddhas practice.

[84:41]

You have to be willing to be thoroughly what you are, otherwise you won't be a slave of your phenomenal existence. And you may say your phenomenal existence is swell. In other words, you may say, this phenomenal existence, this dog has the Buddha nature, And you may say, this phenomenal existence doesn't have the Buddha nature, but no matter what you say, you're a slave. But if you're released from your phenomenal existence by your thoroughness and willingness to be who you are, then you can say whatever you want, and you're free. You can say mu, or you, or yo, or yes, or no. You can say whatever you want. It's expressions of your freedom based on your willingness to be who you are. How can we not live totally in this? How can you not? You can only imagine that you don't. You can only skip over it and go on to something more interesting.

[85:44]

By your imagination. Is that the slavery that you're talking about? Yeah, we're enslaved to our imagination. We're addicted to using our great brain in all kinds of addictions, other than just being intimate with our phenomenal experience, completely abiding in our phenomenal expression, completely living in the Dharma position of this moment. And then we don't say, hey, there's a thought of something else, and I completely abide in that thought of something else. And thereby, through that imaginary thought, I realize the Buddha way. I will realize the Buddha way. I vow to realize the Buddha way through my deluded thinking. Buddhists are those who are awakened in the midst of delusion.

[86:46]

Ordinary people are those who are deluded in the midst of ideas about enlightenment. Buddhists do not think about enlightenment, except during national conventions. Buddhas are thinking about delusion all the time because that's where they live. And sitting in the middle of delusion, they suffer with all sentient beings and they vow that the vow to drop all attachment to this delusion gets very strong until finally it's just delusion and they see it for what it is and that's it. That's all there is to it. That's all they do. Sentient beings, however, have more interesting things to do. Namely, imagine there's something other than this or something better than this. So that's what they do. So that's a sentient being for you.

[87:50]

So fishing with a straight hook is willing to do it again, willing to live a completely as yourself, but willing to get caught in a straight hook. Fishing with a straight hook is willing to be yourself and waste more time at that. And if there's anybody there who isn't willing to be you, they're going to have a problem fishing with a straight hook and they're going to start complaining. So if you fish with a straight hook, the one who doesn't want to be just you is going to start complaining. That one is going to surface. That one is going to become defiant. We're not catching anything here. We're not accomplishing anything. We keep being carry or whatever. Can't we do better than this, really? Well, yes, we can.

[88:52]

That's called a sentient being. Buddhas don't wish to do any better than you. They have a vow to liberate all beings, but through being individual beings. They do not try to skip over being individual beings. They are willing to be ordinary people. Ordinary people, however, defiantly, steadfastly refuse to be ordinary people. That's how you know they're an ordinary person, because they think that they should be better, that they can be better, and they actually refuse to be ordinary people. That's a characteristic of ordinary people. And they have that very strong, very powerfully established in them. So if you fish with a straight hook, namely just sit in yourself and don't have any hook to catch anything or get out of there, the one who resists this will be caught. So then you know that's the one you really have to sit with. That's your real friend, the one who's holding out.

[89:54]

the one who's rebelling against the program of being an ordinary person, which is a really ordinary person. Now you've really found the core ordinary person. You really don't want to be that one, because that one's not just ordinary, but that's a rebellious, unhappy troublemaker. Now it could be willing to be with that one, too. Oh, how yucky. But that's the pit. That's the real fertilizer. Dragons are caught by a straight hook and what? Well, the commentary is wrong. I'm just kidding. Just kidding. Just kidding. Okay, well, that's the end of the class. And thank you for your interest in this koan. And stay close and don't do anything I wouldn't do.

[90:59]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_83.52