During the sitting, I said something about clearly observe breathing in and breathing out, clearly observe the process of breathing. And I asked, is someone breathing? And now I would say that the, I'll just suggest that the, as I did earlier, that the structure, the structure that one can, that can be inwardly observed, the inner structure of the breathing is similar to the structure of the way

[01:32]

the breathing is talked about. And the structure of a self or somebody who's watching the breathing is also similar to the structure of the way of talking about that self that's watching the breathing. So I would modify a teaching given by the Buddha and say it like this. Train yourself thus. In the breathing, I'm able to say, in the inhale, there will be just the inhale. In the exhale, there will be just the exhale.

[02:40]

And when, for you, in inhale, there's just the inhale, then you will not identify with it. There won't be a you and the breathing. But it's not to say that there can't be a time of talking like, I'm breathing, where there seems to be me and the breathing. There can be that, but when there is that, then one could note, then there's a teaching which says, the picture, the appearance of you and your breathing

[03:51]

is a picture of how the language of you and your breathing is functioning. There really isn't a fact of you and your breathing. There's just an appearance of how this breathing and you are being talked about. The perfection of wisdom does not abide in anything, does not abide in inhaling or exhaling. And again, people say, can you be devoted to something and not abide in it or dwell in it? Like, could you be devoted to a friend and not abide in that devotion to the friend or abide in that friend?

[04:57]

So we take the breathing and see, can there be breathing without abiding in it? And also, can there be talking about the breathing without abiding in the talking? So, yeah, so... Oh, someone asked where this hymn comes from. It comes from the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines in the chapter called Hell. So in the chapter called Hell, the first section is called Hymn to the Perfection of Wisdom, and this is taken from that 8,000-line Perfect Wisdom Sutra. Did anybody here ask about that? So the person who asked is not here. So I'll try to get the message to that person, whoever it is. I don't know the person's name. And again, I don't say that people are just names.

[06:05]

I just say that the way people appear in consciousness is just talk. So the bodhisattva is trying to develop a mind that doesn't dwell on anything and the bodhisattva who is trying to practice perfect wisdom does not review any reality behind the words that she uses or that she hears. She hears the words but does not imagine a reality behind the words. And in consequence, she does not settle down in them.

[07:12]

She does not abide in them. It doesn't say she doesn't talk, and it doesn't say she does talk. It just says that when there's words, she doesn't imagine that there's a reality behind the words when she's cultivating perfect wisdom. Cultivating perfect wisdom destroys the expressibility of phenomena. It doesn't destroy the phenomena, it destroys the idea of the expressibility of phenomena. It destroys the idea that phenomena can be expressed in words.

[08:16]

And then the bodhisattvas try to use words, having destroyed the idea of expressibility of phenomena. So some bodhisattvas, like in these perfect wisdom scriptures in India, they say this kind of thing. And in China we have the Zen bodhisattvas who demonstrate this in other ways. So for example, there was a bodhisattva in China And his name is pronounced, the Japanese way of pronouncing his name is Fuketsu. If you remind me next week, I will try to have the Chinese pronunciation of his name, Fuketsu. And a monk came to him and said, this is a simplified version of the monk's question, both speech and silence

[09:22]

fall into transgression. How can we avoid doing so? And Fuketsu said, well, actually, can I, I'll just comment that to say speech and silence fall into transgression, I think what that means is that both speech and silence, one can fall into abiding in them. How can we avoid abiding in either? And Fuketsu says, I always think of Hunan in March. The partridges chirping in the hundred fragrant flowering grasses.

[10:28]

This is an ancient example of avoiding abiding in speech or silence. In his response to the monk, there was both speech and silence there. And when I say that, Can I say that without thinking that there's some reality behind what I just said? And can you hear what I said without looking for the reality behind what I just said? But I did say it. What did I say? No, just at the last part there I said, in his response there was both speech and silence. The teaching is there's not a reality behind either his speech or his silence.

[11:34]

But I asked you, did you see his speech in silence? Did you hear his speech in silence? One person did. You didn't? Did you hear the speech? Yes. Did you hear the silence? Yeah. So there it was. So the monk said, how can you avoid falling into that? And he demonstrated. And there was the Dharma. Or there is the Dharma. He's speaking and he's silent in his response and doesn't abide in either. And if you can hear that, You're very fortunate and very grateful maybe to the Buddha for teaching that. That Dharma which is there when we hear speech and hear silence without imagining some reality behind it.

[12:47]

Yeah. Yeah, it's just the other thing when I listen to that, that the words evoke an experience in me that feels like something at home. So I don't need to abide in it, but you know, you're talking about how there's this word and there's nothing behind it, which is okay, but it's also in particular Yeah. And then when, for example, hearing his speech in his silence, you might say something. Like, what might you say when you hear the way he is speaking and the way he's silent? What might you say? Ah.

[13:52]

Any other things you wish to say? I know how you're silent. I got that part. But any way you wish that you would speak in response to the way he practiced not falling into, not transgressing into speech or silence. This is his great demonstration. Thank you, yeah. Thank you. And when you say thank you, there's another opportunity to see if you can say that. And maybe that's an easy one, that you think, oh, thank you, and you didn't think there was some reality behind the thank you. That was just, I don't know what that was, because... I don't know of something behind that that's going to tell me what it is. The only knowing what that was, was knowing what thank you is.

[14:57]

The picture of how thank you works. So I want to tell another story. And I don't know if tonight's the night to tell it or not. Actually, there's two more stories. Actually, there's three more stories. So one story is about two Zen masters. And the background story of these two Zen masters, I was going to tell you, but I think maybe I'll tell you this story first, and then maybe later I'll tell you the background and come back to this story.

[15:59]

So it's a story about a Zen teacher named Fa Yen, which means Dharma Eyes. Dharma Eyes. Dhamma I, that was his name. And he said to one of his cohorts, one of his companions, whose name was Sushant, which means Master Mountain. So Dhamma I says to Master Mountain, if there is a hair's breadth difference, it's like the distance between heaven and earth. How do you understand this?

[17:01]

And Shishan said, if there is a hair's breadth difference, it's like the distance between heaven and earth. And Faiyan says, how can you get it like that? And Master Mountain or Master of the Mountain says, I'm just this way. How about you? How about you? And Dharma I says, if there's a hair's breadth difference, it's like the distance between heaven and earth. And Master of the Mountains bowed.

[18:03]

Now if I say, this is an example of how Bodhisattva's use words without dwelling in them. This is how they talk to each other without abiding in their talk. If I say that, I watch to see if I think that what I just said had some reality behind it. I didn't see any, did you? So I'm telling you stories about people who talk to each other without transgressing into their talk. And when I tell them, I watch to see if I transgress into this talk. Yes?

[19:14]

Did you say, why do I... It's not that I didn't see reality in their exchange. I didn't see any reality behind their exchange. In other words, I thought I did see reality in their exchange. Did you? I just didn't see any basis for the reality of their exchange, and I didn't see any reality behind what they were saying to each other. Even though, in this story, when Master of the Mountain comes back very nicely to, how do you understand if there's a hair's breadth difference it's like the distance between heaven and earth he comes back very nicely with if there's a hair's breadth difference it's like the distance between heaven and earth but his friend doesn't accept that and says you know pretty good but how can you get it with that and then

[20:46]

He says, this is the way I did it. How about you? And he does it again. Part of what I just saw here is that it's not like you finished this process. There's another silence and another sentence to challenge your practice of perfect wisdom. although it ends with shishan bowing, the story doesn't end. The practice doesn't end. And there's, so there's background And the background is not reality background, it's word background.

[21:54]

To deepen the non-abiding in the words. And to show... Yeah, to show what? To show how... the words can be used to deepen the non-abiding by seeing how these words could offer more opportunities for abiding. But before I go on to tell the two background stories of this story, I'll stop here and see if there's any further questions. Yes? You mean that the thought arises in consciousness that this is a different way from talking from some other way?

[23:10]

Yeah. This is perfect wisdom talk. And to talk thinking that language refers to something outside language, that way of talking is not the way of talking which is conducive to perfect wisdom. Perfect wisdom uses words to realize a truth that cannot be expressed in words. The structure of the difference between these two ways of talking is the structure of the way of talking about these two different ways. And there's no reality to the difference between these two different ways. But that doesn't mean I say, oh no, they're not different. Like the way bodhisattvas talk and the way people who are burying themselves in delusion talk, it's the same.

[24:24]

No. It's different and there's no way to distinguish between these two different ways of talking other than talk. There's no way to distinguish between the two other than talk. But with talk, you can distinguish. But there's no real difference between them. But if you ask me, yes, the way of talking where you do not believe that there's some reality behind what you're saying, the way of talking where you realize that the coherence that's appearing in mind while you're talking is due to the coherence of your grammar, not the coherence of what you're saying in terms of some reality behind it. That's one way of talking. Then the other way is most people think that when they say some word, it's more than a word, they think there's some reality behind the word.

[25:30]

And that way of talking does not lead to perfect wisdom. But the difference between those two is insubstantial. And there's no way to distinguish between them other than words. So there's not really a difference between them. There's only a difference in way of talking. I'm not saying, I didn't say that. One has a certain... Yeah. And there's no reality of better behind the word better. But I didn't say the word better. I just said this way of talking, I just said you have to use words to realize perfect wisdom, but you have to use them in a certain way. But that doesn't mean that the way of perfect wisdom is better than the way of perfect delusion. Perfect wisdom doesn't think that. And there's not a difference between the people who are talking in these different ways other than words either.

[26:45]

The difference between them, the difference between the way they appear to us, is talk. And the sameness is also talk. But the main way of talking sameness is to be quiet. But if you abide in that, It's not the point either. Yes? So I'm trying to put my mind around this thing. So I'll try to paraphrase . If you're saying that the poor boy stopped by the little bride's work at the window, he or she had to walk there regularly to go back and look. No, no, I'm not saying that. The way for the bodhisattva to abide in perfect wisdom is by way of not abiding in language.

[27:53]

And there are consequences of not abiding in language. There's karmic consequences of that way of dealing with language, and the karmic consequence of it is to set you up for perfect wisdom. We'll have to deal with the words in a way. yes and everybody's feeling their way through words but most people think that they're feeling their way through words that are about something other than words and therefore they just feel their way through words without opening up to perfect wisdom feel your way through words and realize that these words are not about something other than words they are about something they're about words so feel your way through words like that Yes?

[28:58]

So Suzuki Roshi was meeting with who? Suzuki Roshi and Trungpa Rinpoche were meeting, yeah. Yeah. I haven't heard that story. Well, I actually just happened to be at Tassajara when Trungpa Rinpoche came down to Tassajara in the summer of 1970 to meet Siddhartha.

[30:44]

I just happened to be there when he came to visit. But I did not witness that particular conversation. Can I say something? Noticing abiding is usually an essential ingredient in the path to realizing non-abiding. Most people don't just immediately stop abiding because it's a deep habit.

[31:44]

I find in myself that you want to divide a lot. And I think that fire is better than the natural thing, so it's better than that. But there is love. But I just wonder about this natural, intense, wiring intensity that I'm sure I would share. Well, there is the language that others share it. But there's not a reality behind what you just said, but I can talk to you about that, that others share this tendency. That's why this teaching has been given, is because people tend to abide, and it's a very deep habit to abide. Yeah, there's lots of use to language.

[33:00]

And it's probably the case that almost no one can learn language without abiding in the learning process. And abiding in the learning process means that they start learning language by thinking the words refer to something other than language. Almost nobody's enlightened enough when they're a little baby to understand that these words are just referring to other words. So almost everybody starts learning language by thinking mama refers to something that's other than words. And that language is very useful. But part of the price of this very useful thing of language, which can later be used to learn the teaching which will free you from abiding, is to do a lot of abiding, a lot of transgressing in the linguistic education process. And even if we would say that languages, not be appreciative of language, fine.

[34:20]

But even if you're not appreciative of it, the bodhisattvas use it So regardless of how you judge it, there's no reality behind the linguistic judgment of language, like good or not good. And there's no reality behind me saying that we must use language in order to be free of it. Rachel? No. No. It's not the only view. Understanding that and speaking with that understanding is very liberating. Bodhisattvas do that. They actually, like all these stories are these Zen bodhisattvas using language to free themselves from abiding in anything.

[35:28]

But it's maybe difficult to use some other things that you're abiding in. Without language, it's hard to convey that you're abiding in other things has no basis. So somehow we... In fact, everything we're abiding in, there's no basis for the abiding. Everything we're apprehending and clinging to, there's no basis for that. But it's hard for us to see that, even though it's right there. until somebody says something to us. And now he said something to us, but then tells us that what they just said to us was just talk. And then if you can do it with that, then you can start applying it to things, like breathing. Breathing is not language, but the way breathing appears in consciousness is the way it appears is similar to the way we talk about it.

[36:29]

For example, inhalation and exhalation, the structure of that process is similar to the way I say inhalation and exhalation. Inhalation and exhalation is not words, but the structure of the way it appears in consciousness is similar to the way I talk about it. And the way I talk about it doesn't have the reality of breathing behind the way I talk about it. And the reality of breathing is that when you see it, you're liberated by its reality. There were some other hands, I thought. OK, they went away. Yes? Did you say you know who got it?

[37:32]

Oh, you don't get it. Okay. Well, yeah, I think so. Okay. Before I mention, before I say what I'm about to say, I would say be kind to your story, this thing in your mind that says you don't get it. Be kind to that. And be kind to that in whatever way you think would be kind. Any ways you could think of being kind to the thought, I don't get it? Well, what if you do feel bad about it? Then how would you be kind to that? Okay?

[38:42]

Yeah. So maybe you said not feel bad about it. I'm just guessing that maybe you do feel bad about it. Do you feel kind of bad about not getting it? What's the yes part? Yeah. What's the bad part about that? What? Oh, frustrating. Oh, you feel frustrating. Okay. Okay. Okay, I got that part. So you have this idea, I don't get it. Well, that's another story. So I don't get it, and I'm frustrated, and another one is it probably doesn't matter if I don't get it. But you're telling me that now. And you're telling me that now is kind of, I feel myself, I have a story that you're telling me that is a kind of kindness.

[39:45]

So that I can say to you, maybe it doesn't matter. But when you say it doesn't matter, what did I say? I hope, I wish that you would not say that in any way to demean it. Okay, so that's fine. So I wouldn't go so far as to say it doesn't matter. Like I'm not saying to you it doesn't matter that you feel frustrated. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying now, so what I'm saying is if you can be kind to the frustration, then you might be able to open up to me telling you that there's not a reality behind the language, I don't get it. There's not a reality behind I do get it or so I get it. There's not a reality behind that either. But those two sentences make sense to me.

[40:48]

And I'm also saying to you that in both cases, if you practice kindness towards I don't get it, I do get it. If you practice kindness towards that, to both of them, or either one, that you make yourself ready to hear that there's not a reality behind those statements. Kindness, without kindness towards that language, it may not be possible for you to listen to the teaching about the language. No, it's more like the ground upon which the wisdom grows. So you have language, and if you're kind to the language, then you can receive the teaching about the language. If you're mean to the language, it makes it difficult to hear the teaching about the language. And if you're mean to the language, I would say the reason we're mean to language is because we think

[42:02]

There's some reality behind it. Well, judgmental in the sense of judgmental. The word judgmental used to, you know, 70 years ago the word judgmental just meant to judge. Now we say judgmental means to be negatively judged with kind of a mean, kind of a not very gracious and magnanimous feeling about it. Yeah. So that's a new way that a judgmental is like executioner judgmental. So if that shows up, like I don't get it, and then there's an executioner in the neighborhood, we have something to be kind to because the executioner is not necessarily going to let this person listen to this teaching, including that the executioner, that there's no reality behind the word executioner. The meaning of that word comes from other words.

[43:04]

But to listen to this teaching, you have to be kind to language. Yeah? I find myself asking if it's a good idea to practice renouncing that there is a reality Second part. That reality is not something to be apprehended. No, not that there isn't one. There is a reality and the reality is that nothing can be apprehended except in delusion. then it's an interesting kind of twirling the sword in the air sort of feeling about connecting in the moment with a spiritual need with which to respond through a sense of self, perhaps in myself.

[44:29]

I can do an evening prayer, but maybe I'm supposed to be able to practice it myself. Maybe it leads me to a state where, whether I attend it or not, but I participate in it. In suffering, reducing suffering. I don't know. He said quite a bit there. Could you deliver it in little pieces for me to respond to, if you want me to? I just find myself remembering what I was thinking when you were talking about the difference, you know, and then repeating that a second or third time, and so forth, was Shushan Plotkin. He could have said that.

[45:37]

He said, if there's a hair's breadth difference It's like the distance between heaven and earth. How do you understand that? He could have responded, what's the difference? He could have said, what's the difference between heaven and earth? He could have said that. That could have been his response. And Fa Yan might have said, good. Even though his response was very good, I thought. And in fact, it's the same one that the teacher made later, if he'd said, what's the difference, that might have been even more satisfying.

[46:40]

But it also wouldn't have allowed us to see what we learned from what he did say. So in the other case, he says, if there's a hair's breadth difference, it's like the distance from heaven and earth, the other story. If there's a hair's breadth difference, it's like the distance between heaven and earth, that's the first story. In other words, speech and silence both if you abide in either. So the first story is the same. If there's a hair's breadth difference between speech and silence, you transgress. So what he said was, I always think of Hunan in March. But when Dharma I said, If there's a hair's breadth difference, it's like the distance between heaven and earth.

[47:44]

Shishan could have said, I always think of Sertran and what delicious food they have in the autumn. Could have said that. So that's the first answer was like that. The second answer was showing how to use language in this other way of repeating it and seeing if you can repeat it and demonstrate no abiding in the repetition. So they're feeling each other out. How can you demonstrate no abiding without any reality behind the demonstration? Last week I said that part of what this demonstration is, is a demonstration that birth and death and nirvana, samsara and nirvana, if you see that they're not different, then they are actually the same thing.

[48:56]

So that's part of the background of the story. If there's a hair's breadth difference between the realm of suffering and the realm of freedom from suffering, then it's like there's a big difference. If you have a difference between them, it doesn't say that there's no suffering. It doesn't say there's no peace. It says if they're different, a little tiny bit different, it's like then this is really not peace here. This is not freedom. No way. And if that's the case, I don't get it. If that's the case, we need to be really kind to samsara until we're ready to be with it without settling into it and then hear the teaching that if you don't settle in samsara, you'll see that it's not the slightest bit different from nirvana. And when you see that, then it's so. Now how do you understand that?

[50:05]

And so we see different responses to that question. He could have said, he could have said, I don't get it. And Dharma I might have laughed. I don't get it could be an expression of I'm not abiding in this situation. And I'm so happy to tell you this. That, you know, and I didn't even like, and there's not the slightest bit different between me not abiding and being free of this test you just gave me, dear brother, and falling into it. falling into it or being free of it, no difference. And so I can say, I don't get it. Or I could say, I do get it.

[51:08]

And I can say, I don't get it without abiding in that. I can say, I understand you without abiding in that. And people can say to me, you know, I really feel like you understand me. And then it's possible that I won't abide in them saying that to me. Or, you know, you don't understand me and I won't abide in that. It's possible. In reality, that's reality, is we don't abide in what people tell us about ourselves. We don't abide, actually, in what we think about ourselves and what we think about each other. We don't. We don't. But when we think we do, that's called samsara. And that's suffering. But that is not... When you understand what that is, you understand that it is itself nirvana. And then it is when you understand it. So we're not trying to get away from samsara. We're trying to understand it.

[52:11]

And we're using words. Because that's where words live in samsara. And samsara lives in words for us. Yes. Yes. No, it's not. It's not a linguistic event. It's freedom. It's a freedom from language. It's going... The freedom comes from? It comes from reality. It comes from truth. It comes from the Dharma. It's coming through our linguistic faculties all the time, but the way it comes through is it gets converted into linguistic forms. And it's not linguistic forms. It's just that we render it so it can nourish us.

[53:12]

We render it into what we work with. We're surrounded by the ungraspable nature of everything that's surrounding us and penetrating us all the time. but we don't see it because we are addicted to the unreal for good reason. I'm saying we can be free of it. We can be free of the unreal by listening to the teachings of the unreal and its relationship to the real. and the real is giving us teachings about the relationship between the two, and is telling us to be kind to both, and is telling us to realize that they're not separate, but that they are separate if we imagine them as such, if we don't understand. So we have to practice, we have to enact the teaching, otherwise

[54:13]

We can hear it, but it still will be this hair's breadth difference. And that will be like... Very painful. John and then Carol. Good. Yeah, there you go. How are you doing? yeah well speaking is a way to discover abiding and and Yeah.

[55:16]

Yeah. You see the attempt to grab. So speaking is sometimes spoken of as the essence of karma. So you can think when you're quiet. Your karmic thoughts are going on and you're abiding in your thinking. But when you speak sometimes you can see it. that you somehow notice, oh, there's self-righteousness. I do think that what I'm saying is not just words.

[56:17]

There's some reality behind what I'm saying. That's kind of why I wanted to speak, because it seems pretty easy to be sitting here and kind of just smile. Yeah. I get it. Yeah. I encourage you to continue to speak, to test, and watch when you're speaking. Do you think somebody's saying that? Do you think you're doing it? And do you think there's a self behind the linguistic structure of I am talking? The sense of me talking is very similar to the grammar of what I just said. The sense that I'm talking is very similar to the grammar of what I just said. I look at that And can I look at that while I talk? And the answer is, I can learn that. And I can also notice that it's easy to get distracted from it and actually think that when you think things about yourself, that there's actually somebody that's behind that opinion you have, backing it up, rather than the meaning of that is the language.

[57:37]

Carol? Carol? Well, we could say, I'm bowing silently. So that's, I'm thinking that I'm bowing. In that conversation, one of the stories we told, one of the exchanges, Yeah, it concluded with him bowing. So where do I put that? Where do I put it? It could be. could be more precise, and that precision then, in many stories, the precision of a bow is then tested by the teacher saying, what happened such that you're bowing?

[58:48]

And then the student talks. So the student teacher are talking, and the student bows, and then the teacher says something many times. And sometimes what they say is that bow was, you know, behind that bow was the idea that there was something behind. In that bow there was the idea that there was something behind it. Or sometimes the teacher says, in that bow there was dropping off of any idea that something could be grasped. But we don't know until either the student speaks, and when the teacher says, well, what happened? How come you're bowing? And the student speaks, and the teacher says, yes. Or the student's bowing, and the teacher doesn't ask a question. The teacher just says, this is it. This is a real bow. You did this one without thinking that you were something separate from the bow.

[59:50]

which is the same as saying the structure of you appearing separate from your bow is only linguistic. You are not separate from your bowing. I'm not separate from my talking. But linguistically, I can appear to be. That's the only way I'm going to be. And so in that story, there wasn't a follow-up. So I don't know how well that bow was performed. Well, part of the background story is about this, you know, what do you call it, master of the mountain. He was a Zen master. These are two Zen masters meeting. Two Zen masters, like, precisely toning the kind of conversation where there's no abiding. So then maybe they could also bow that way. So then Dharma eyes didn't say,

[60:52]

That was a good bow or not a good bow. So we could say, I believe it was a good one. Fran and then Tish. Yes. Yes. So I heard you say, in the statement, I always think of Hunan in March. And then you said, what? Yes. He's demonstrating speech and silence, yes. Yes, I would say he is. But he's also demonstrating not abiding in either.

[61:53]

Because that's what the... Is that what he's demonstrating? He's demonstrating that and simultaneously demonstrating that he's not abiding in either. Because there isn't, we can abide in neither. But when we don't understand that there isn't, we might then be abiding in whether we're silent. We can abide in silence and not notice it, but anyway, you can abide in silence and you can abide in stillness. But We don't tell people, well, don't talk and don't not talk because you might abide in one or the other. No. You're going to do one or the other and then, like Sarah said, notice if you are abiding. Notice if you feel like you are. In other words, notice if you're in samsara.

[62:55]

Notice if you're suffering. Yeah. It could have been anything. However, that's what it was. And I always think of Fuketsu saying, I always think of, I always think of that. I always think of that because when I heard that in the springtime at Green Gulch, I just really felt like this is where I want to be. I want to be in this non-abiding. where I don't, you know, I wasn't worried about not getting it. I didn't, like, get something when he said that. The visiting teacher said this story. I just heard that and I thought, yeah, this is my life. Huh? Yeah, I don't know why either.

[63:57]

And if I try to get why, then I know what that will be like. But I don't try to get why. I don't try to get why in the other conversation either. Because in the other conversation it's kind of saying, obviously it's not about getting something here. A hair's breadth deviation is like the difference between heaven and earth. A hair's breadth deviation is like the difference between heaven and earth. A hair's breadth deviation. This is not about getting something. That's the nice thing about that one. The other one is... The other one's also not about getting something because it's so obvious that this isn't about getting something. This is about partridges in the springtime. And there's nothing... There's no separation between that and nirvana in reality. Tish. Is it bowing at one of those special things that allows you, whether you're abiding in it or not abiding in it, to kind of take it to the next level?

[65:17]

It could offer an opportunity to fake it until you make it. That could be one of the things it offers to you. But it could also offer an opportunity to notice that you're faking. If you don't bow, you might not notice that it was a fake bow. If you don't try to sit up straight, you might not notice that you're not sitting up straight. If you don't try to practice good, you might not notice, oh, that wasn't very good. People who are not trying to sit up straight don't notice necessarily that they're slouching. But most people who try to sit up straight notice they're slouching. And most people who gassho kind of go, hmm. But that's not faking it. That's noticing. that you're dwelling. And noticing your dwelling is not faking the bodhisattva practice. Part of the bodhisattva practice of not abiding in anything is to notice that you're abiding in things.

[66:25]

Bodhisattvas don't abide in not abiding. So when they abide, they say, okay, I'm abiding. Bodhisattvas do not, I told you last week, they don't abandon samsara, right? They don't abandon the world of cyclic suffering. But they also don't refuse to abandon it. They're not like, oh, I'm not going to abandon it. I'm not going to, I'm not, no. Sure, I'll abandon it. Fine. No problem. And also I won't abandon it. I don't abandon or refuse to abandon it. So I try to practice non-dwelling in anything and that completely is compatible with and not at all separate from noticing that I'm abiding. And it's also not separate from abiding and not from dreaming that I'm abiding and not noticing it, which is a sad situation.

[67:32]

It's a happier situation, which many bodhisattvas share with you, is to notice I was abiding there, and I'm sorry. But I was. I actually thought, when I said that I was right, that I was, like, a reality behind that. Actually, when I thought I was better than that person, I thought there was something more than just a linguistic structure there. I admit it. Anybody do that? Yes, I did it. And... And I'm sorry. And now I'm going to try again. Because I want to practice perfect wisdom. And it seems to me that it's the most available practice. You're so welcome.

[68:52]

And I don't know who you are. But you are totally welcome. I refuse to abide. I do abide. Those are just words. That's right. Those are words that just talk. And that's the Buddhist teaching. There's an expression. I mean, They, when they don't want their friends to think they're abiding, they won't be telling them. People very often say, I'm just saying. That's a pretty nice one. I'm just saying. And then you look, look.

[70:04]

in the structure I'm just saying, and do you think there's some reality behind I'm just saying?" And if you do, you say, oh, I was lying. Actually, I thought at that time I didn't think I was just saying, I'm just saying. But before that, I... So that's a good statement because it can surface. In other words, you can say, I'm practicing this precept, and say, oh, that wasn't really that pure.

[70:30]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_87.73