origination suchness. Do you have your hand raised? Well, first of all, I want to respectfully say that I appreciate your daring statement.

[01:24]

It's not quite what I've been saying. Suchness did not emptiness, straight-on period, suchness is emptiness in the sense of self-transcendence, but suchness is dependent origination in the sense of self-emanence or in itself, so suchness is more like in a triangle with emptiness and dependent origination. It's not equal to one or the other. The identity of them, and how they sort of reflect off each other, that's suchness. Suchness isn't just emptiness.

[02:26]

But you never have emptiness without dependent origination. So, yes? I'm sorry, I just didn't... You lost me in that statement. So it is, first of all, It's sort of incomplete to say suchness is emptiness, or emptiness is the truth of the suchness of being. Suchness is emptiness in the sense of self-transcendence, but self-transcendence of course involves dependent origination, or suchness is dependent origination in the sense of the sort of inherent quality of suchness. It's not just suchness to one or the other, it's suchness in relationship to this dynamic balance between this identity of the two.

[03:30]

Well, sort of like that. They don't exactly meet though. It's the identity of the two, and all that implies is suchness. I mean, the identity of them sets up this, you know, this explosion of reality. But to say that suchness is emptiness is the beginning of the story. Or you can say suchness is dependent origination. But then you've got to say dependent origination is identical with emptiness. And then you can say, well, emptiness is the is what's dependently co-produced in the sense of transcending itself and negating itself. And you can say, look at the other side, and so on. You start vibrating all over the place, and you get into what suchness is.

[04:55]

Totally inconceivable, in other words. So anyway, it's not quite just that simple. Just like emptiness is not just Emptiness is not the whole story of this teaching of Mahajanaka, right? Yes? Could it be then what you call the Absolute, Satcharita? Is Satcharita the Absolute? The Absolute Truth? Yes, Satcharita is Absolute. But again, when you say that, then you've got to remember, When we say suchness, in other words, the way things are, is the truth. Okay? The way things are as such, just as they are. That's it. Nothing more or less than that. Okay? But that's not like something.

[06:00]

Okay? That's not like this thing that's there, which is the way things are. It's like, you got things, right? We have things, sort of, appearing all over the place. Depending on idam prajna, depending on this, depending on dependent origination, we have these things appearing, okay? Which are fictions or designations which have recourse, okay? So you have things, but the way things are is not a thing. The way they are is not a thing. The way they are is just the way they are. That's not a thing. And yet, it's not like nothing. It's, you know, it's not like nothing. It just says it's not another one of those things. The way Albert is, and the way Dorotea is, each of those things, the way they are, is not a thing.

[07:04]

And yet it's not like nothing. Right? The way Albert is, is not like, is not nothing. And yet, I mean, Albert's not something, really, right? But still, there is a way he is, just as he is, and that's not a thing. But it's like something, though, in a sense, because it's like the vanishing point. It's like as little as you can get to anything happening there, that's the way Albert is. There's some being there, you know, some thing being there. And that thing being there is produced by dependent origination. And there's nothing to it, absolutely nothing to it. However, that's not... the fact that there's absolutely nothing to it is not suchness. Suchness is that there is something to it, sort of.

[08:05]

But the suchness isn't the something to it the way the thingness of the something to it appears. That's much more of a deal, right? And the emptiness is like there ain't nothing to it at all. The suchness is kind of like sort of in between there in a way. It's like it's being but it's like just as little as you can get. It's like being in the sense that there's really total minimum. So we say it's like a lightning bolt in a clear sky. Flash of lightning in a clear sky, something like that. That's what suchness is like. And that's what every moment is, every moment is like that. And of course lightning bolts just flash and die, flash and die, flash and die. And also they flash, they come in like, you know, a lot of ... suchness comes in, you know, entirely filling everything that happens.

[09:08]

So ... and that ... independently is dependently produced too. And that's constantly transcending itself. That's the constant transcendence of whatever is happening. And the emptiness side of suchness is the transcendence. The dependent origination of suchness is kind of like that sort of appearance side of it. But the flash of lightning side of our being is ... yeah, that's a different aspect of our being than the straight-out, independently co-produced side which is sort of built of these solid building blocks which makes birth and death. It's not that there's no causal sequence there, it's just that all the elements in the causal sequence are lightning flashes.

[10:13]

lightning flashes, dancing with lightning flashes, and the lightning flashes again don't have zero existence, they have this absolute minimum existence, and they don't have the power to do anything, and yet the sum total of all of them, plus the lightning flash quality of the whole process, all that together, and then the fact that all those things, although they're flashing, they're also completely empty, completely emptied and yet not emptied like emptied too far so that you sort of get over into that they don't exist at all. That kind of way is how independently co-produced suchness is. And that way actually lives in the world as enlightened behavior. And we have stories about that type of behavior. And that type of behavior, although it's inconceivable, it is not beyond rational discourse.

[11:27]

When you first look at it, you may think it is inconceivable, you may think it's irrational. When you first hear about this teaching, And if you don't then justify this teaching and bring this teaching back around to rational discourse, it would sound like insanity, a lot of this stuff. That's why Mahayamaka makes this effort to bring very clearly, not only does this stuff appear in the world enough to make people think it's weird, but then they even take it further into the world, in a sense, and explain it logically and rationally. No, I'm saying that you can address the inconceivable by rational discourse, so that you don't just say to people, the way these people are talking is nonsense. It's just insanity.

[12:35]

But you don't try to say that their behavior isn't inconceivable. You just try to show how and why it is inconceivable. behavior. Why enlightened behavior is so spontaneous and free, in other words. Spontaneous behavior may look inconceivable, and you can talk about inconceivable events in such a way that it doesn't correspond to logic or rationality. If you do that, though... It's not poetry. Well, I don't know if poetry is not fitting but maybe it isn't. But my Jamaica, anyway, bends over backward to make this rational. To demonstrate why it's rational that these statements are so spontaneous and free, and why it makes sense that they wouldn't be under anybody's control.

[13:39]

I'll give you an example. A couple of examples. Two examples. An example of one kind and an example of another kind. One kind of dependently co-produced birth and death and an example of dependently co-produced suchness. One is a kind of one-dimensional approach, horizontal, ordered sequence. a conceivable demonstration of Buddhist teaching. The other is dependent and which is dependently co-arisen. It's an interaction between King Malinda and this famous Buddhist monk named Nagasena. King Malinda says, ask the venerable Nagasena.

[14:45]

Just like Nagarjuna, Naga, that's Sena. I'm going to pose a question to you," King said. Nagarjuna said, Nagarjuna said, please ask your question. King said, I've already asked. Nagarjuna said, I've already answered. The king said, what is your answer? Nagarjuna said, what did you ask? The king said, I asked nothing. Nagarjuna said, I answered nothing. Okay?

[15:53]

No? What's the matter? I don't understand how that's necessarily an example of horizontal DCA. I couldn't explain it. You couldn't explain it to me? Oh, well. But that doesn't mean that it's horizontal, the fact that you couldn't explain it. No, I don't mean that. I know you don't. I'm just telling you that the fact that you could, it doesn't mean it's not. Okay? But also the fact that you could explain dependently originated suchness does not mean it's not dependently originated suchness. You can explain dependently originated suchness. That's a certain... Okay. So I can explain this to you. Want me to explain it to you? Okay. So the king says, I'm going to ask you a question. All right? So he says, I'll ask it. You understand that? I understand all the words.

[17:03]

Well, I'm asking if you understand. I mean, I'm explaining to you. You say you can't explain, I say I can. Okay, so I'm going to try to explain now. And then you can tell me if I didn't. But I think I can explain this. But that doesn't mean that I think that my explanation can prove that ... the fact that I can explain it isn't what proves it. It's the way I'm going to explain it that proves it. Okay? Then he says, to ask you a question, and the king says, well, what have I asked you? I mean, you know, I already asked you. That's logical. He just said, ask your question. He said, I already asked a question. All right? You understand that too, right? You don't. What don't you understand? Well, I didn't hear him ask a question. He did, he said, can I ask you a question? Okay, he said, can I ask you a question? King says, go ahead, ask your question. He said, I already asked your question. Which is true, he did.

[18:04]

King is right. And Nagarjuna already answered it. By what he said before, please ask, that was his answer to the first question. Right? They're both right. following along ordered sequence then next King says what did I ask okay and you know he said and he said he said what did I ask what he said what's your answer what's your answer and he said he said what did you ask and he said I didn't ask anything which in a sense is true he didn't ask anything really he did but he didn't I mean it wasn't really anything to what he asked And Narasena says, I didn't answer anything either. Okay? This is actually kind of interesting because they're not talking, they're actually, neither one of them is saying that there was anything to what they talked about. Right? They're not saying that. There's a kind of, they're in other words, they're realizing that there's sort of emptiness to what they're saying. Right? However, the way they're talking, even though they're in some sense demonstrating emptiness, the way they're talking, every step of the way,

[19:12]

I propose to you is coming from being. It's an ordered sequence and I propose to you that this is not a demonstration of enlightened behavior. This is not a demonstration of it. I'm saying it's one-dimensional, horizontal, ordered sequence of events and I don't see any demonstration here. of the identity of emptiness and dependent co-arising. I see that they're showing the vacuity of the conversation, I see that, which they're doing very nicely, but the whole thing is turning totally on birth and death as far as I can see. Now it's a very nice conversation between two sharp cookies. But there's nothing in this, I don't see anything in here, but just simply the working of logic, that's all I see. I don't see anything in here to drive them out of this cycle. Myself. Where is it based on being? The station is that one is based on being and one is based on not being.

[20:20]

How is this based on being? The interlocking of the language is very straightforward. I don't see any demonstration here of non-being. I see no reference to non-being, the function of non-being here. I see basically a conversation which has the same structure as two people. These guys aren't arguing or anything or insulting each other. They aren't saying they're miserable. But this line of reasoning, if you apply this to some other kind of conversation, is the same as the kind of conversations that people suffer over. the same kind of thing. It's the same thing that happens in a court of law. You have two lawyers sitting here. This is the same thing that happens in a law court, I propose. This makes a lot more sense. This is Buddhist. But what I'm saying is that the problem of this particular presentation is that I don't see anything in here that's driving this thing to freedom.

[21:27]

And I don't see anything in this which is ... I don't see anything in any of these lines that's addressing the emptiness or this lightning flash, this sort of ... I don't see anything in this that's saying that what they're talking about are designations only which have recourse. I don't see that their designations have recourse. Although these are two famous Buddhists. Well, listen to the other story. If you can't see, if you think that this isn't from being, if you think it's from non-being, then please, maybe, if you want to try it. I don't think that it's from non-being, but I don't see how it's not based on being. Well, maybe try to show how it's from the point of view of non-being, and then you'll be able to see it from the point of view of being. But that's maybe short notice. of the categories, if it's not from Darlene, then it's from me, that's it.

[22:35]

Oh well, you can think of some other category. Here's the other story, okay, this is a Zen story, right? This is a story of people who are practicing Madhyamaka, trying to put it into their actual daily interchanges, right? That's what they're trying to do, they're trying to ... people are practicing Madhyamaka people because that's the basis of Zen practice, daily life, right? Here's the introduction. So I'm proposing that this is a multidimensional story. See, multidimensional includes zero-dimensional. Part of this is a zero dimension, not one dimension, but two or ten or infinite, but also zero, no dimension. Here's the introduction. This is Case 40 of the Book of Serenity. where the wheel of potential turns, even the eye of wisdom is confused.

[23:40]

Okay, now I would propose to you that the other story demonstrates the wheel of potential turning, and I would propose that the eye of wisdom would be confused in that story. The eye of wisdom would not be able to see a way out in that story, in a story. If you went in there, you might be able to respond to that and get out of it. But in the story, I think you're going to be confused. I mean, that's what they say in the introduction. Not so much as a mote of dust can get past. Oh, excuse me. When the jewel mirror is open, not so much as a dust mote can get past. Opening the fist, not falling to the ground, dealing with being beings in accord with time. When two sword blades cross, how is the exchange?" Okay, now, Yunmen asked Jianfeng, Answer please, teacher.

[24:47]

Jianfeng said, Have you come to me yet? Yunmen said, Then I'm late. Jianfeng said, Is that so? Is that so? Yin Men said, I thought I was like Hou Bai, the crook. You're like Hou Hei, even worse. That last part is a reference to a Chinese story. But before I get to that part, basically he's saying, I thought I was bad. You're even worse. But that's a story. of dependently co-originated suchness. Could you repeat the image you just gave me? Could you read it to me? An answer, please, teacher. And then Jian Feng says, have you come to me yet? Yin Men says, then I'm late. Jian Feng said, is that so?

[25:52]

Is that so? Yin Men says, basically, I thought I was bad. You're even worse. This can be explained, but also you can't get a hold of this, as opposed to the way you can get a hold of the other one. This is not from the point of view of being. Different story. This is from the point of view of emptying every moment. That's where it's from. talking like this, which is inconceivable but there's a logical and rational presentation about why people talk like this or how they talk like this. And this could be pointing to insanity or craziness but it is also indicating suchness

[26:56]

And the way you would show that it's indicating suchness, the only way you're really going to do that is on yourself to enter into the realm of suchness, and you can continue the conversation. I propose that to you. The other one, you do not have to enter into the realm of sessionists to continue their story. I am confused about the way you're talking about sessionists because it sounds like there are things that are sessionists and there are things that aren't sessionists. That's right. That's right. There is dependently called or risen birth and death. which is not dependently co-originated substance.

[28:04]

That's right. Did you hear everybody? Now you would think, I mean I can understand how you feel that way, I can. I actually tell you this truth. I have felt that way myself, I thought, now suchness is going to be everywhere, right? Because suchness is just the way things are, right? Okay? But part of what we're saying here in this teaching is that, yes it's true, suchness is just the way things are, but there is the appearance, okay, in this world of confusion. There is a reality to the fact that there's confusion in this world. Now, of course, there is also a suchness of confusion. But confusion is not suchness. Confusion is an appearance which believes, for example, usually confusion believes that there is inherent existence.

[29:07]

That's sort of the basis of confusion. So I'm proposing, this teaching is saying, there is dependently co-produced confusion. that's a fundamental thing, birth and death, then there's dependently co-produced confusion, dependently co-produced anger, dependently co-produced greed, and so on. Okay? That is not dependently co-produced suchness. The suchness of that same process, using greed, hate and delusion, the suchness of those things would be how emptiness in identity with dependent co-origination was there at that same time. It's not to say that there isn't a suchness of confusion, it's just to say that confusion is not suchness. Suchness, when it comes to stuff, is awakening, is freedom.

[30:20]

dependently co-produced birth and death, is bondage. And bondage is, of course, suchness is empty, and bondage is empty. Right? But suchness is when being is emptied so thoroughly, always, you know, in every dimension, that suddenly lightning bolts happen, and then we have this wonderful thing happen. That seems to appear. I mean, it has an appearance. But its appearance is not like the appearance of confusion, which has a much heavier and solid feeling, because it's due to heavier and solider things making it. Which, of course, really are empty, but there is the appearance of heavy, solid things. And heavy, solid things interacting with heavy, solid things, conditioned and conditioning things, That's what it's like to have being.

[31:25]

So the story that I first proposed to you, I propose, has more heavy and solid. Much easier for me to explain it, although I can rationally explain the other one too, but it's going to be quite a different explanation. I'm going to have to go back and do a whole different bag of tricks to explain that one. But there is a rational discourse which discusses how the pendently co-arisen being, which is awakened being, how that happens. There is such a thing. And my Jamaica did that so that people wouldn't think that this suchness can't come back into the world of conventional truth. It must. In fact, it does. Shakyamuni Buddha was perfectly rational in his presentation. These people were his disciples. And Nagasena, as far as I'm concerned, was probably perfectly enlightened. It's just that this story here Looking at it now is quite different than looking at the other story.

[32:28]

The other story requires us to actually enter into the process of liberation in order to understand it. The other one you can investigate it and it might be of some use. It's quite interesting. But you don't have to totally reverse the way you think to understand this first one and to study it all you want. You can stay in birth and death and study this first story for the rest of your life. If you study stories like this other one, you're going to feel really weird unless you get on to suchness pretty soon. Don't you think? Yeah, it's hard to get this stuff. Yeah, it's hard. This is requiring a reversal in the way you think. You have to die to understand this stuff. So I'm wondering how we approach studying a story like that.

[33:28]

If the only way to understand it is by entering suchness, how can we, if we haven't, how do we approach it? I didn't say emptying suchness. Entering suchness. Or entering suchness, yeah. That's the only way. It's the only way. There's only one way. This means only one way. Enter suchness. OK? So if that's the case, then you have a problem? How do we work with that story? What's it kind of maybe, it looks kind of like a technique to studying it or dealing with it. Technique, you want technique? Want technique? Sure. Ready? And silent.

[34:29]

That is our technique. And just do that. You want that one? The story is right there. Did you forget it? Did you forget this story? Here, memorize it. Memorize the story, and then once you've memorized it, Just sit still and be quiet. And if you try to sit still and quiet, guess what's going to happen? Just take a guess. Listen everybody. This is going to be his guess. Okay, but I didn't say that. I said if you do sit still and quiet, Maybe I didn't, but I'm saying to you. If you do sit still and quiet, then guess what's going to happen if you memorize the story? I'll understand. Right. But what else will happen even before you understand it? Silence. That's right.

[35:34]

It's hard to be in the hot seat. Somebody else tell them what it is. Flash of lightning. Flash of lightning? Yeah, flash of lightning. What am I trying to get him to say? Suchness. Entering suchness. Hmm. Hmm. You asked me for a technique, I told you the technique, and then you forgot what you asked me the technique for. So then you enter suchness, and then you can have fun and read these stories and understand. Exactly. Exactly. So, what's the point of reading before you've entered suchness? Well, Soto Zen sometimes says, don't read these stories before you've entered suchness. First enter suchness and forget about the stories. That's Genjo Koan. Genjo Koan says, just forget about these stories and just enter suchness and then deal with whatever comes up and have fun with that. Perfectly good. Just deal with the the manifestation of suchness as it appears right then. You don't need these stories. However, if you happen to be practicing at Tassajara, if somebody asked me to give an example of these two kinds of things, I'll say this story and then you've got to deal with it.

[36:48]

Or you might go to an artisan center and hear this. But anyway, you don't have to read the Book of Serenity if you don't want to. Well, it seems like a lot of people who haven't had suchness read it anyway. After they read it, they ask me, is there any technique for understanding these stories? And I say, yeah, just sit. And then they say to me, why do you have to read these stories? That's the world I live in. I'm not kidding, that's where I live. And I entered it willingly and knowingly. That's why it's fun, it's because we're practicing suchness, without delay. That's what sitting is for, that's what zazen is for. You've got a body there, you sit still and quiet and you realize emptiness by that process. And then in that state of emptiness things appear and you realize the identity of what appears in emptiness.

[37:53]

a realization of suchness, and then you keep sitting and do it some more, and then you read these stories because you already bought the book. And it's your day off. You know, you can also read the comics, it's fine too. Which, you know, which you think is more fun, you choose for yourself. You're practicing suchness? I can't say which is going to be more fun, but I will tell you that most people think the comics are fun. But people who practice such as think these are at least as good as the comics. At least. So, we were practicing this week. We practiced sitting pretty well. Pretty well. I think on the fifth day we were pretty settled and we're just about ready to start sitting, you know, a couple more days. We have a five-day session. It could have been seven or more. It took us a while to get settled down, but we finally did settle down, and when we settled down, we were practicing suchness.

[38:56]

And then we started to understand things a lot better. And things would get pretty wild, and we could stay right with it. We can also follow this other story. It's a nice story. This is no harm done. This is a harmless story between two smart guys. And things went very nicely. They didn't harm each other at all. Very friendly, intelligent, alert, wholesome. But I'm saying, I don't see in a story the same encouragement to just sit as I see in the other story. And also, I think that just sitting produces this story, and the other one might or might not. If you're practicing suchness, you can do a story like this too. I just did it to you a few minutes ago, didn't I? It's a nice story. I like Nagasen. He's a neat guy. Sure. As a matter of fact, I'd like to recite to you what's his name's verse.

[40:05]

Tian Tong's verse. Okay? Just the first line. This particular case for his verse is very, very nice. Very nice. Not the first verse. Well, actually the first verse. First verse is, The bowstring and arrow are notched. Jewels face each other in the net. I say that because that line, jewels face each other in the net, is sovereign equals meeting. So part of the story is this thing of sovereign equals meeting. These people don't owe anything to anybody. And yet, you notice how friendly they are and how much they want to meet each other? And how equal they are? Equal sovereigns. That's a little bit more I have to say about the case.

[41:11]

But I feel this case is a demonstration of this mutual recognition. Working for mutual recognition and also really asserting themselves really asserting themselves and really trying to see what the other one's doing at the same time they're really in that space of confirming each other of asserting themselves and looking to see what the other one's doing and trying to see what the other one's doing and trying to understand where they're coming from at the same time neither one of them depending on something outside so this sovereignty this independence you know and this dependence this unity between them, this intimacy and this separation. In the first story, I don't get that dynamic so much. It seems like there's a storyline that they're both hooked into. I mean, that's a little bit more. How was that? That was great.

[42:16]

As much as you want to do, it's fine. Well, Carol's raising her hand, so I'll go on to her, okay? She's got a fever. I was going to ask about the point of view. Is there a particular point of view? When you say that there's a zero dimension to the story. I didn't say that. I said one-dimensional means one-dimensional. The first story, I think, that's what they mean by one-dimensional. Basically, I see one dimension in the first story, and I see it as horizontal. I don't see it like taking off into other dimensions and so on. To me, if somebody else wants to demonstrate that, that's fine, but then I don't see it in the story. I'm saying that when we say that the dependent co-arising of suchness is not one-dimensional, It doesn't mean that it can't dive into that one-dimensional story, it can. If these guys walked into there and met those guys, then suddenly it would be, you know, they would have entered that one dimension, but then I think other dimensions would be opened up.

[43:24]

I'm just saying that one of the other dimensions that you could open up, besides infinite dimensions, would be zero dimension. For it to have no dimension at all, because in fact, it doesn't have any dimension. The whole one-dimensional thing is empty, it doesn't even have one dimension. From the point of view of suchness, every element along the way lacks inherent existence, plus the whole process lacks inherent existence. However, it is a process, it is a chain of causation that's not a chain of causation. And also, it doesn't go so far as to say these elements and the whole chain don't exist at all. It doesn't deny it flat out. In other words, it doesn't violate conventional truth. It doesn't say there's no suffering. In emptiness there's no suffering. Yes. But emptiness is not suchness. Suchness is the identity of the appearance of something that doesn't really exist and the fact that things don't really exist.

[44:31]

It's the identity of the fact that there is a don't exist, but they are being produced in their appearance and, remember, we just said they didn't really have existence and we're reminding you of that again now.

[45:36]

Plus the whole process which produces them is empty too. That's suchness. And the way you enter into it, one technique is to sit still and another technique is just die every moment. And since it has to be that quick and you can't quiver that fast, what we do is we sit still. That does it. If you sit still, you die every moment. So part of what I actually would like to practically say to you, and I've been saying a little bit, but I just, I want to say this, you know, with the best, you know, with the warmest heart possible, that I'd like you to think about between now and the next session, how you can find a way to actually sit still and be quiet in this end. I know it's hard.

[46:39]

I didn't say it was easy. I have a hard time myself. But if you want to understand, if you want to realize what emptiness is, one very practical way to do it is to try to figure out how to actually be quiet. For example, if you have something in your throat, one way to deal with it is to go... Now the way is to swallow. Now, clearing your throat like that may be faster than swallowing. You may have to swallow several times to deal with whatever that thing is, that little thing. But it's not necessarily that you should always do the fastest, most convenient thing when you're practicing suchness. So, to set the criteria of being quiet, and you know, I feel Zen centers are pretty lenient about this. A lot of Zen centers, they don't allow us to make noises like we do. But I would like to say, why don't you try to find a way to actually eliminate all restlessness, all nervousness, all sounds, all movements.

[47:49]

Try. That process of trying, of exhausting your effort, to deal with these practical things will help you realize what emptiness is. And I didn't, this is, you know, this is just regular, you know, Zen practice, no big deal. And when you finally get to the point, that point of silence and stillness, that's actually kind of an initiatory door to this wonderful dynamic balance and play between what's appearing, like your throat or your cough or your twitch or whatever, the place between that and emptiness. The place where you get to the silence and the emptiness of it, not the emptiness of the silence, but the emptiness of this thing, this noise you need to make, they come to the same place. And also, before this thing completely disappears, it's still appearing, but the absolute minimum

[48:53]

of appearance, of being. At the vanishing point of being, the emptiness, the silence, and the stillness. Emptiness is silent. Non-duality is silent. Now your worldly phenomenal silence is different, but the effort to find the limit of what your effort can be in trying to be silent is something to do with the silence of emptiness. So those things, silence, stillness and emptiness, those three words go together. And Zen teaching kind of tries to find out a way to put filler between those three. Because basically, otherwise Zen teachers would just say, silent, empty, still. Silent, empty, still. Silent, empty, still. which also includes immediately die.

[49:56]

They say stuff in between, like they say, our wreaths are green, flowers are red, silent, empty, still. Be on time, silent, empty, still. Get up as soon as the alarm clock rings, silent, empty, still. But in fact, trying to get up when the alarm clock rings with no hesitation is also silent and empty still. It's dying. It's dying of your sleeping bag. It's dying of the warmth and jumping into the cold. It's dying of this and entering into that. So that kind of construction is another way to die. If you die, you will be able to be still. If you die, you will be able to be quiet. But if you still want to be alive, and take the point of being, you're going to have some problem with dying you're going to have some problem with being quiet. You're going to have some problem with being quiet.

[50:59]

Even though everybody here wants to be quiet, as long as you're sort of attached to being alive, it's going to be hard to be quiet. But when you're not attached to being alive, you will be able to be quiet and alive. And then when you read these stories, you'll think they're very, very fun. And in fact, you sit Sesshin, and you get quiet in Sesshin, and then you read these stories, and you feel really good, because it's like, geez, you didn't even want to read these stories, you know? But today, it's like, it's me. This is my story. That's how you feel. Just like this, you know, if you, the way I was talking the last day of Sesshin, if I talked that way, you know, I don't know, sometime in the past, you people wouldn't have gone for it. Plus I wouldn't have dared talk that way. I didn't do that lecture by myself, you did it too.

[52:03]

You allowed me to, you supported me to. And I was really, allowed myself to be myself. I just died into that thing. Wasn't trying to do anything. But you made that possible. I didn't do it myself. Okay, you made that possible. I didn't do it myself. What did you say? Just a little piece. A little piece? A little piece of anything. Thank you. I sang songs too. I sang two songs. This Little Light of Mine and Red Red Robin and stuff like that. That's just, you know, Something that happened to me on the way to the lecture hall, you know? You can be yourself when you practice suchness, because you know, you don't have to be somebody else.

[53:04]

And also, but you do have to, and being yourself, and I'm proposing that me being myself, what I really am is somebody who really wants to recognize other people. That's really what I do. So I get my, I have a listener's request on my radio show. What teaching was the Green Mountains? Was that a case? No, that was... I don't... A case means... Yes, it is a case, yes. It's a case, but it's not like a dialogue. It's like the first quote in the Mountains and Rivers Sutra by Dogen Zenji. And it's something that Fuyō Dōkai talked to his monks, right? And I quoted that story of Fuyō Dōkai meeting his teacher because I thought it was a good story.

[54:09]

The first part of the story is co-dependently produced birth and death. And then something happens, the teacher's lightning flash comes into the room Fuyo Dōkai gets it, and he changes his practice into this other dimension, or the zero dimension. He drops all dimensions, and now he's talking, and now he's, he's now, a codependently arisen suchness has happened. He dropped the whole thing. He dropped his whole project that he had in mind, right? Of going to the teacher, and talking to the teacher, and getting us all straightened out about these Buddhas and ancestors, you know, how their daily life is practiced. Well, yes it is. But his whole orientation was from the point of view of being. And also, from the point of view of he wanted to understand, personally, for himself, rather than he was asking the question for all beings.

[55:09]

In which case, he never even would have gone. Then he starts asking his questions in a different way. What does he do? He starts walking out of the room. And then what does the teacher do? who told him he shouldn't have come in the first place. The teacher says, come here. And what does the teacher do? And then he doesn't listen to him. And then what does the teacher do after he doesn't listen to him? He says, come here again. He says, well, did you learn something? Looks like the teacher's trying to find something out now, right? This teacher's willing to come into the world of conventional reality. He's got no problem with that. Bodhisattvas do that. The quote covers his ears. Then the other story is how he studies them to try to clarify this, what he learned there, to try to practice it in other situations, to continue to practice suchness in our daily life, which means when we meet someone, if we can remember, empty, empty, empty it, remember, it's empty, without, you know, without sort of like not expressing yourself or something, you know, go up and say, how do you do, my name's Reb, but when you do it, you know, when you do it, empty it,

[56:25]

As a matter of fact, you can put more gusto into the handshake because it's empty. It doesn't mean you don't be careful not to hurt the person's hand. As a matter of fact, you make more effort not to hurt the person's hand because it's empty. Because it's empty, you're more in touch with your grip. You're more willing to just sense, how is this for this other person? Because you're not shaking hands just for yourself. Because you also emptied yourself. And you kind of get into that, of having an empty person go talk to an empty person, an empty person go save an empty person. You get into that. Because, you know, you just have gotten into it, you know. That's what he did. He got into it, and then he tried it out with his teacher again. Teacher said, walk along, hands him his staff. He says, OK, I took the staff, got the staff, emptied the staff. Then he says, it's not out of line for me to carry my teacher's staff and shoes. they talk like that. When you're primarily oriented towards being empty and silent, then when you talk, things are not coming to you by your own program anymore.

[57:36]

And it doesn't mean it's nonsense, it's just different. It's spontaneous, it's free, and it's just, it's not misery. Even though you're right in the same ballpark as you were before, but somehow there's some joy and there's some freedom because you're not holding on to things and you're not attributing substance to every little chunk along the way, plus the whole process. And the whole process is birth and death, round and round. After a while, there is not birth and death and there's nothing being born or dying, but I have to do the work of dying. Nobody else can do that for me. And it's an interesting story. Suzuki Roshi, this is kind of a nice book. This is a lecture by Suzuki Roshi in the Berkeley Newsletter. Someone, some swordsman visited another famous swordsman.

[58:39]

I don't know whether it was Takuan Zenji or not. I don't know. I don't know if it's a true story or not. I don't know. Anyway, that man wanted to be a master of kendo. So he asked this man, how long will it take for me to master your way? And the answer was something like, if you want to master it in three years, it will take 100 years. If you have a strong conviction, to be killed by it, and you can master it immediately. That's the unquote, as Suzuki Roshi says. That is the way. If you expect to study, to master in three years, it may take 100 years.

[59:43]

But if you don't mind to be killed in this place, you can understand right now. That's what he said. So you may understand how important it is to have strong conviction in your practice of zazen. When you think, actually, I can never stand up from this seat unless someone tells me to stand up. Then, at that time, your practice is beyond time and space. How long? It doesn't matter. Wherever I am doesn't matter. I shall never stand up unless someone tells me to stand up. This is Shikantaza. This is just sitting. This is sitting still. This is dependently co-arisen suchness. He didn't say that. The conviction to be killed by it is dependently co-arisen suchness.

[60:54]

The not caring how long it's going to take is dependent on the co-origin session. If you're dead, you don't care how long it's going to take. If you're alive, you do care. Care a lot. Well, you are alive. That's okay. But if you let go of your life, and you don't care how long it's going to take you to realize the way, then you realize it immediately. Now, you may say, they say, if you wanted to do it in three years, it's going to take a hundred. It might take a hundred. And actually, if you want to do it in three, it might only take three. but it might take not more than a hundred also. But if you don't care, it doesn't take three, it doesn't take two, it doesn't take one, it doesn't take a week, it doesn't take a second. It takes place exactly at the moment that you die, exactly at that moment. In other words, I am actually willing to sit here forever, unless somebody tells me to leave, and then I'll leave, go serve lunch or something. Don't forget that part.

[61:58]

That's the penalty quoted in Sutton's tomb. Some people get into that. In the early days of Tassajar we had one guy who crossed his legs and that was it. So we had to take him to the hospital. He wouldn't have crossed his legs no matter what. So that's why he said, if someone tells you. This lecture was given after that time. It doesn't mean you decide you're going to sit still and it's your trip. Yeah. What's the effort? What's the effort? Try to sit still sometimes. Try to be quiet. That's an effort.

[62:59]

Want some more? A different effort? Try to get up in the morning immediately when the alarm clock rings without any hesitation. That's an effort. Right. dying, that's called dying. And if you could do that same thing each moment, like, are you actually going to put down your agenda of recognizing Albert, you know, or remembering your name, or are you actually going to concentrate on dying and emptying each moment, emptying each moment, and meeting in each moment emptying. And emptying each moment also means emptying your agenda and your profit and your beauty empty. To empty that stuff you will naturally start to be interested in other people and wonder what they're up to and be interested in recognizing them. But recognizing other people is also emptying yourself. Recognizing other people is emptying yourself.

[64:05]

That's like I said, destroy what you think other people are inside you. That's emptying yourself. It's not emptying them. Destroy who you think I am. Me destroy who I think you are. That's emptying myself. That's emptying my own perceptions. and not believing that you're what I think you are. Then naturally I'd say, oh my God, my God, people, wonderful people, weird, strange, unhappy, beautiful people. All because I died. What is it, whatchamajigger? Whatchamajigger. She gave me this thing from Romans. It says, do not be confused, or do not conform to this world. This world doesn't mean this world, this world means what you think of it. Don't conform to what you think of it. Be transformed by renewing your own mind. She wrote that to me and asked me if that's what I was talking about. Refresh your own mind.

[65:09]

How do you refresh your own mind? Well, admit that it's dead. Admit that it's old and stuffy. What do you do with old stuffy stuff? Let it be old stuffy stuff and find some new stuff. Throw it out. Get up in the morning with the first ring without any hesitation. If you already know how to do that, you've got problems. If you know how to? Yeah, then you have problems because I don't have any more teaching for you. Yeah, you've got problems. You should, you should hesitate. Do you hesitate every morning? Oh, well, then you should not hesitate. Don't hesitate. I do what I like. Honesty is very important. It's basically the same thing. If you're honest, you'll die. Yes.

[66:19]

Or is it in the process of being honest and admitting that you don't want to, confessing that you don't want to? You just did. I do. That's enough. Well then you did. That's enough. You did it. But is that dying? A little. It's a little dying. Yeah. But you can die a little bit more than that too. Sometimes. Huh? Sometimes. Yes, I'm only talking about sometimes, and then again. I'm just talking about sometimes, just do it sometimes, and then do it again, and do it again. The more you do it, the more you do it. That's all I'm talking about. I'm not, huh? Can't argue with that. Yeah, I'm just talking about sometimes, that's all. Just like that story, like I all like that story at the end of the Hana and her sisters, with Diane Keaton, it's her 40th birthday or something, and they have the birthday cake, the three sisters. He said, well, make a wish. She said, oh, well, OK.

[67:20]

It's not exactly a wish. It's a vision. It's more like a vision. I see the three of us around a birthday cake. And we're happy. But it's just for now. Not forever. Like that. This is nice. Enjoy it. Let go. Start over. Fresh. I see you now. Okay. That's enough. That's enough of that. Okay. Start over. Okay. I didn't use this trick, but you know, you have these big black sleeves. They're really nice. All gone. Carrie reminded me of that one. All gone! The baby still knows how to fantasize that the person's actually gone, just like that. We sort of got out, you know, we think, oh no, forget that.

[68:25]

I'll just remember that they're there. That's called stinky practice. Sukhiroshi's called it stinky practice. He said, one Zen teacher and all his monks, every morning they'd get up and go jump in really cold water. Why? To eliminate stinky practice. It does, at least for a moment, just for now. Then you get out and run and get warm. But for a second there, you know, and I do that practice in the bay, right? I go swimming in the bay. And it's great to swim there, not just because of that, but because of the wide diversity of people that do it. You know, there's laborers, Lawyers, doctors, politicians, gangsters. Lots of cops. Gangsters. Lots of cops. Lots of cops, gangsters, dope pushers, gamblers, you know, old Italian, 80-year-olds, 90-year-olds, young people, men and women, it's a great group.

[69:28]

Anyway, they all say, in the winter particularly, they all say, they come out of the water and I sit in the sauna with them and they say, after this I can live my life. I can go in the bay. You know, it's their spiritual practice, and I love to do it with them. It just, for a second, for a moment anyway you die, and when you're at the water you think, Is this stupid or what? Then you say to yourself, hey, this is dying, that's good, right? Yeah, but this is, I mean, really. Come on. They think, well, I got all the way down here and everything like that and I know after I do it I'm going to feel better. Believe me, after you die you'll feel better. You know you will. It's just, haven't you got better things to do, right? Theoretically, but actually with my body, I'll just do it mentally. Okay, I died.

[70:28]

But actually when you die, you actually die and the whole body goes through it. In this case, the body goes first and the mind comes along. If you do it with the mind, the body will come along. But, you know, just to make sure, start with the body. That's why we have this sitting practice. And for all of us, every one of us, young and old, male and female, all our different problems, for all of us. It may be more difficult for some of us than others, true. But still, if we sit still and we be quiet, we will die. And then, we'll be new. And then, we die. You go back and do it again, you die. And that's what makes Zen practice work. And Zen is to apply this fancy Majamaka teaching. And that is also to apply this fancy Yogacara teaching. These teachings are so that partly we can explain to our parents if they need to know why we're doing this.

[71:33]

It's a rational discourse, a very lovely rational discourse that has been able to hold up to all comers for 2,500 years. It actually is a strong argument for what we're doing here. It's a strong rational permission for doing the practice of suchness that actually works. So the enlightened people are gifted with a functioning intelligence and linguistic ability so that what they're doing doesn't violate conventional reality, so they can talk to people in ordinary language. And if they argue, we can say, well, what's the problem? And they can present their arguments and we can say, well, look it up with them. It works out. By the way, that story about Aryadeva, Nagarjuna's disciple, I told it a little wrong. He was already Nagarjuna's disciple when that story happened. This guy, he was a Shivaite scholar and yogi. He had taken over Nalanda University. Nalanda University is a big monastic university in northern India, one of the major Buddhist universities.

[72:44]

And this Shivaite yogi scholar, a very powerful guy, came in there. and entered into a debate with the leaders of the community and beat him. So the rules of India at that time was if a guy beats you into bed, you have to let him take over. So he actually took over Nalanda and he made the Buddhist monks go to his rituals and stuff like that. And the legend says that the people in the monastery formed a petition and wrapped it up and gave it to a pigeon. Pigeon took it up away and took it to some, they hoped to some great Buddhist sage. Anyway, got to Nagarjuna in southern India. Whether that's true or not, anyway, somehow he got wind of this. Historically, supposedly, he got wind of this problem and sent Aryadeva, didn't wish to go himself. But this guy was very powerful, so he trained Aryadeva before he left.

[73:46]

And the way he trained him was he adopted this Shivaite philosophy and he debated Aryadeva. He tried all the Shivaite techniques on him and Nagarjuna did it so thoroughly that his disciple actually got so angry at him that he attacked him physically. Anyway, they kept going like that until Nagarjuna felt like he was ready to go meet the guy. And then he told him this thing, he said, you may be asked for a sacrifice on the way, but if you have absolutely no regret, whatever you give will be restored to you. So then he did pull his eye out, he gave it to the beggar, and of course the beggar had trouble getting it in his eye, right, because he wasn't an optician, an ophthalmologist.

[74:51]

He didn't know how to put the eye in his eye, right? That was the problem there. When did the beggar ask this question? On his way, he left southern India to go up to Nalanda in northern India to debate this Shivaite master, right? On the way, this beggar said, can I have your eye? The blind beggar said, give me one of your eyes. So he removed his eye, gave it to the guy, the guy tried to put it in his eye, couldn't, got angry and smashed it. Aryadeva looked back, shouldn't have looked back, but he did, felt a pang of regret at wasting his eye for that, and therefore it was not restored to him. That's why it's called One-Eyed Lord or One-Eyed Master or whatever. Anyway, he went up there with one eye and he didn't announce himself right away. He just sort of entered into the community quietly and he did various interesting things.

[75:55]

One of the things he did was, this guy, one of, part of this guy's, what do you call it, part of his practices was to go into the Ganges and to, you know, do ritual cleansing And he had the Buddhist monks going with him doing this thing. And so Aryadeva went into the water carrying a golden bowl full of excrement and started washing the inside where the excrement was. And the guy said, what are you washing the inside of the bowl where the excrement is? while you're washing the outside with the next excrement inside. Anyway, he kept doing things like that and finally the guy said, you want a debate or something?

[76:59]

Anyway, it's 9.05. I'll tell you the rest of the story later, but he won. I just want to mention that I don't know if we're going to ... There's one more element, one more major element in my Jamaica teaching, which I don't know if I'll be able to bring up to you before I leave. I'll just tell you now. the name of it, and that is the teaching of two truths, conventional and ultimate. And Madhyamaka teaching, you know, creation is running her loom and shuttle, right? She's got this fabric there, this ancient brocade, and a woven fabric has a warp, right? A warp? What's the warp? The horizontal, the horizontal lines and it has a woof, right?

[78:16]

A woof or a weft, okay? So he can say that the identity of dependent origination or dependent arising and emptiness, that's like the warp and the two truths are like the woof or the weft, yeah. The two teachings are very different but they actually make the fabric of my Jamaica teaching. So we probably should get into that to give you a fuller sense of how it helps you understand even more fully how suchness produces these fantastic stories like this of inconceivable liberation and weirdness and at the same time how it comes right back into the world and talks conventional language and has rational discourse and suffers and all that stuff.

[79:19]

But I may not be able to do it before I leave. When are you leaving? I'm going to leave in three days. I have to go to a bunch of meetings that I promised I'd go to before I practice Buddhism. And also I wanted to say that I guess it wasn't clear, communication wasn't clear. Some people thought that this class would go to 8.30 and I'm sorry if that was a... I don't know if I'm sorry if that hurt somebody's feelings or anything. I didn't know that anybody thought it was going to stop at 8.30. But it's all right. It's not past 8.30. It's now past nine, but not nine-thirty yet. And Dorothea has one question. Is it okay if I answer it? No, I don't have a question. I want to say something.

[80:19]

Oh, Dorothea wants to say something. There's a good book, it's called Living or Dying, by Stanley Kielemann. Living or Dying. Just leave it. Such mischief.

[80:56]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ