someone it comes up again and again someone said something like they hear the cons are not to be approached intellectually or are not to be like you're not supposed to interpret them by literary interpretation or something like that and so that's fine we won't do that But we don't approach the con intellectually, but your intellect's always operating, basically, except in states of torpor or certain kinds of organic brain disease or certain trances. Otherwise, the intellect is operating. So the question is, how do you study these koans when your mind's sitting there, you know, either thinking about the koan or thinking about something else?

[01:13]

We're now going to be on case 42, right? So a national teacher... Nan Yang's water pitcher. So either your mind is going to be thinking about this case or thinking about something else. And either this is going to be a piece of literature in front of you or it's going to be a piece of something else in front of you. So you have to deal with what's happening in your mind. And... So part of the causes and conditions of your mental activity is whether you read this koan or not. So without looking at this koan, you're still going to have some mental activity. And it may be that you could understand this koan simply by examining your mental activity. You could look at a wall and inquire into what kind of mental activity is going on while you're looking at the wall.

[02:25]

And if you understood, then if somebody put this koan in front of you suddenly, you might be able to understand the koan immediately. On the other hand, the koan might give rise to a kind of mental activity that caught you. And then again, you might not understand what's going on with you. So the issue here is, can you understand what kind of mental activity is happening, even while studying Zen stories? Now a lot of people, and that's one way to say even while you're studying Zen stories, but I don't know if it's actually any harder to understand your mental activity when studying a Zen story than when studying an ordinary daily life situation. It's just that most people, when they look at the kind of mental activity that's going on when they're walking down the street or when they're reading a letter from their uncle, they think they understand what kind of mental activity is going on.

[03:38]

A lot of people think that, but when they read these stories, they think they don't understand the story. They don't necessarily think, I don't understand the mental activity that's going on in me while I read the story. But whether they think that way or not, they still, most people would say, I don't understand what's going on necessarily, or I do. And the question is, what kind of mental activity is that that you think you understand? So the approach isn't intellectual. But if it's not intellectual, then we're also subject to intellectualism. So the approach to this story is what's called the backward step. So the ordinary way of thinking is a forward step, but the way, the actual nature and reality of the ordinary way of thinking is a backward step.

[04:40]

The way you or anybody would ordinarily think about anything, including the way you would ordinarily read these stories, is the forward step, is your habitual tendency. The nature of the way you think about anything is the backward step. So we study the kaans by the nature of our thinking, by the nature of language. Or another way to say it is, you know, Dogen says, you know, you shouldn't be pursuing after words, right? You should learn the backward step. So we shouldn't be pursuing after these words. But again, to close the book and run away from the book is also pursuing after the words. The actual reality of the way our mind uses words is the backward step. And that's the way of working with these.

[05:51]

So Dogen says, don't be running after words. And then he takes words, puts them in front of himself, and then looks at the words and speaks about the words. But the way he looks at the words is the backward step. And the speaking comes from this backward step. And this is also called oral transmission. This is a transmission outside the scriptures, right? And the way you show this outside the scriptures, one of the ways you show this outside the scriptures is you take a scripture and you read it to show the transmissions outside the scriptures. Outside the scriptures means when you read a scripture you don't fall back into the trap. Buddhists are particularly susceptible to being ensnared by Buddhist scriptures. Right? So, I guess that's my suggestion, is that it is our responsibility in this class to approach these, to learn the backward step as we study these stories.

[07:09]

to the best of your ability, please now learn the backwards step and then see if we can study this case. Any questions? I wonder often how our relationships with all of us in this class have changed over these years, you know, and the new people that are coming in, for the way you say that, whether we do this automatically.

[08:44]

How did? Whether what? Whether we each do this on our own. Do what? Learn the backward step? Yeah. You wonder about that. What do you think, now that you've wondered? I don't think so. You don't think so? And now that you think that way, what's during the backwards step? Change. Change. How? How? A new evening.

[09:45]

Pardon? A new evening. A new evening. Okay, so there's a multiple choice now. No, or true false. Is learning the backward step the same as renouncing worldly affairs? True or false? False. False. So you say that renouncing worldly affairs is not the same as learning the backward step? No. You say, is renouncing worldly affairs learning the backward step? No.

[10:48]

What is learning the backward step? Not learning the backward step. Is that renouncing worldly affairs? No. What is renouncing worldly affairs? Renouncing the backward step. Can you say that in terms of learning a backward step? Seeing the rain and the flowers on the table. Seeing what? The rain and the flowers on the table. True or false, is learning the backward step to relinquish all your mental activity?

[11:57]

False. False? False. What is relinquishing all your mental activity? Getting off your head. It's not possible. It's not possible? Possible. Is learning the backward step possible? Perhaps. Perhaps. Is relinquishing all your activities of thought possible? I don't believe so. You don't believe so? Would you recommend to someone that they relinquish all their mental activity? It's worth a try. Even though you don't believe it's possible? Right. Is there any difference in your mind between learning the backward step and relinquishing all mental activity?

[12:59]

One will lead to a glimpse of the other. Do you think you can glimpse renouncing all mental activity? Or glimpse the backward step? What do you think the belonging of the backward step is? That you could glimpse it. Well, it's more like seeing a shadow of an object and then knowing the object and assuming that the object is there and perceiving the shadow. Now, the expression, I have expression, what kind of mental activity is this? What kind of mental activity is this? As a way to express renouncing worldly affairs.

[14:08]

As a way of relinquishing mental activity. A way to relinquish mental activity is what kind of mental activity is this? Do you think it's possible to ask that question? I really understand the question. What kind of mental activity is this? Can you ask that question? No? You can't ask that question? What's happening now? What kind of mental activity is going on? Same old mental activity that's always starting out. But you can't ask the question, what kind of mental activity? I mean, do you have different kind of mental activity than me? I'm sitting here saying that question over and over. How come you can't? Oh, because I don't have much. The question doesn't have a real meaning to me. I'm going to have to say to the lawyers.

[15:09]

You can only say things that have real meaning to you? Well, I can say many things that have real meaning, but why say things that have real meaning? I don't answer why questions. I don't understand why you can't ask the question what kind of mental activity. I don't... I guess that fantasy is size that your mind is stuck or something, that you can't ask that question. Can't you ask that question? Of course we can ask the question, yeah. Well, ask it. What kind of mental activity is that? So, when you asked that question, that didn't mean anything to you? What kind of question does mean something to you? Would you give me an example of a question that doesn't make sense to you, that you can get with? What's the color of snow? What's the color of snow? And when you see snow, is that mental activity?

[16:14]

Sure. So could you say what kind of mental activity is this? Well, it's the kind. It's not what mental activity exists, but it's the kind. but it's the gradations of the kind. This is good. You people are really entrenched here. You're saying he doesn't know the categories. Is it right? Yeah. He wants categories of mental activities. He wants categories of mental activities. He wants to know what his options are. Josie?

[17:20]

thinking maybe learning the backward step is to step back to tradition, to the Zen masters who wrote these koat's ad to wonder what their mental activity was when they looked this stuff out. For who? Yeah. And it's also, if you actually step back to having a living relationship with them, it means you're asked, what kind of mental activity is this? Same thing. That's a way to do it. Either way, you should understand that that would apply to what you're asking. As you step back and ask that question, you would apply it to yourself. This wouldn't be about somebody else. That's their tradition, right? That's what they say. If you want to step back and examine our minds, look at your own. That's what they did, okay? So I'm proposing to you that everybody's sitting here with mental activity.

[18:22]

As far as, that's my fantasy. Has anybody not had mental activity? And I'm just asking if you can consider the question of looking at your mental activity and wondering what kind this is. Or take away kind, what is the nature of this mental activity? Or what is this mental activity? That approach to your mental activity while it's going on is learning the backward step. The backward step itself... is actually what kind of mental activity this is. As it actually is. So, I'm trying to initiate the whole group into the

[19:30]

the backward step learning way of studying this koan. So that's what I'm trying to do, for starters. I'm trying to beckon you to that approach to the story. Now, I have something to say about what will happen if you try to respond to that invitation. But before I do, do you have any questions? You know what I thought? It's not a question, it's just a thought continuing on what was going on before. We're asking you about the two, what Dogen talks about, about bringing the self forward to realize or having eerie objects manifest and that those are two ways of mental activity. One is karma. I think And the other is dependent core rising.

[20:33]

And that's the backward step. Studying dependent core rising is learning the backward step. So as you study this story, dependent core rising is sponsoring the study. But then we also should study what sponsors our study, which makes possible our study, namely constantly, dependably co-arising. So Martha said, do we do this alone? We do it together. We study this together because we dependably co-arise here. And we also study with the ancestors past, present, and future in this study. Now, it's okay. I've heard that some people have looked at this story. Somebody told me that he's very happy about this story because he finally understood one of the stories. I didn't inquire into his understanding, but it's possible that he has kind of an understanding of this, which I could inquire into.

[21:40]

So I will be inquiring, but before I start inquiring into his or hers, I want to say that you can have a forward-step kind of understanding of these koans, that's okay, and then we can simultaneously practice the backward step as we discuss someone's forward-stepping into this case. So don't be afraid to have a forward-stepping presentation. which would be one where a lot of you might understand. This is an accessible to forward-stepping kind of story. Okay, Bernd? Well, I have no interpretation of that story, but... Thinking along while I listened to you and what was going on here, how about just saying there is no story and you just said we studied this story or somebody said I have an understanding of this specific case.

[22:54]

But I would question that this exists. This case and this story just doesn't exist. It doesn't exist outside of our minds. Watch your language though, as they say. To say that you would question whether this story exists, I question whether this story exists sounds different from this story doesn't exist. this story doesn't exist, doesn't sound like a question. May I correct myself? You corrected yourself before you said that. You said, I wonder, I question whether this story exists. That doesn't need to be corrected. And the other statement, this story doesn't exist, doesn't need to be corrected. I'm just pointing out the difference between those statements. It's not that one is correct and the other one isn't. It's just that they're different kinds of statements.

[23:58]

One leads me to think that you're questioning and the other one makes me think that you've decided what category this story belongs in. One has not set this story into a category of existence or non-existence. That's my fantasy when someone says, I wonder whether this story exists or not. Then I think they haven't yet decided that this story belongs in the category of existence or non-existence. When you say the story doesn't exist, then I think maybe you think the story doesn't exist because, in fact, you know, for various reasons. So it's not that they're right or wrong, but just notice that there's a difference there that can be observed. So what I can confirm is the position right in the middle of that. She has a constant production of stories. Yes. I read this story this afternoon.

[24:59]

Yes. I read it right before I came here. And both times they are different stories. And sitting in this class... listening to people, something is added to my soul. Yes. Either it kind of confirms when I get stuck on the idea of truth, this is the true interpretation. Yes. This is the true existing story. It might confirm my mental activity or it might contradict and this process is constantly going on and this is maybe also what you meant by kind of um there's a learning together in a certain way which just happens okay and i'd like to just point out again that you say it might confirm my mental activity or it might conflict with my mental activity okay I said, does it not conflict my version of the story? The mental activity is going on.

[26:00]

The mental activity is what happens. Right. So the mental activity is that you might mentally imagine that it conflicts with your version. Right. So studying the mental activity of, oh, that contradicts my idea, or that confirms my idea. That's learning a backward step. Okay. Yeah, good. All right. So we, yes, Mahin. Is that asking that question, what kind of mental activity is it? Is it another mental activity? Is it? No. The sentence, what kind of mental activity is this? When I say, what kind of activity is this?

[27:02]

Mental activity must be there for me to say that. Observing this process is Is the other side of the mind... Is observing this process the other side of the mind? Yeah, part of it, not others. Yeah, part of the mind is observing this process. The mind is observing this process, yes. Right. And if I can identify with my mind... If you cannot? If you cannot, did you say? Yeah. I'll just... Learning to believe that everything is within luck, and I cannot identify with that. So I'm just wondering, who is this observer? Who is observing? You're wondering? Yeah.

[28:03]

I'm questioning. Good. Good. Can you sit with that kind of questioning while we're studying this? Yes. Good. That's good. Please. All right. So, yes, please. Could you, when you asked what kind of mental activity exists, could you also ask where is mindfulness existing or what mindfulness has a person? You can ask that question, where is mindfulness? Or what is mindfulness? That's fine. Are they the same?

[29:05]

They're different questions. Well, you know that, right? So what do you mean? I think, somehow, mindfulness, in some sense, is more familiar to me. So I wanted to... I wanted to share the sentence that has that in it. Well, that's fine. Yeah. But if you change the sentence to one that's... If you have one sentence and you'd like to have another one, then The other one wouldn't satisfy your needs if it was the same sentence. So you wanted a different sentence and you got one. And on that level I said, yes, you're successful, they're not the same sentence, they're not the same question. But I thought maybe you might be asking, is it possible to have the same practice go on, no matter what question you're asking?

[30:10]

And the answer to that is yes, definitely. You can practice the backward step while you're asking any question and making any statement. And the practice of the backward step is not necessarily accompanied by, I am practicing the backward step. And practicing the backward step is not hindered by the question, what kind of mental activity is this? It's not hindered by the question, what kind of mindfulness is this? It's not hindered by the statement, this is mindfulness. However, if you make a statement, this is mindfulness, or this isn't mindfulness, and then you actually adhere to that as a reality, then you're not practicing the backward step anymore. Then you have a mind which has an abode. which has an address which has taken up residence in the reality of some particular verbal linguistic form.

[31:20]

Meantime, even if you're practicing the backward step or even if the mind which has no abode is being realized, the proof that the mind is being realized is that it's not touched by any form of mental activity. And the proof of that is that any form of mental activity can be going on. But the mental activity is not the backward step. It is the mode of expression allowed by the backward step. The backward step allows any mode of expression, and those modes of expression are compassion. So we do our best to express compassion, but If we adhere to some particular mode, then we form a sentimental compassion. Sentimental compassion is that we have habitual response to our sensation, routinized casts of mind in response to the issue of compassion.

[32:33]

But to be dedicated to compassion and have this mind which is learning the back of the step, this is what's been recognized and amended. And so practicing compassion and studying these stories with this attitude is what I'm trying to do here for this case. And I'll also tell you beforehand that I think what happens here is that is that there's a kind of instability in this kind of intention where you vibrate into the realm of learning the backward step and then you sort of vibrate back out, back and forth across the border between these two worlds which are not in two different places. So you vibrate back and forth between renouncing worldly affairs, renouncing karmic activity, and watching things come forward to confirm yourself, and then you flinch from that and come back to the opposition again.

[33:49]

So that's that constant cycling between noticing that you're taking the position of I study, catching yourself at that, admitting it, becoming released and purified from it, taking refuge again in the practice of learning the backward step, having some expression of learning the backward step come forward, grabbing it, confessing it, being purified of it, entering again the study, seeing some expression of it, grabbing it, confessing it, being purified of it, entering it again, this cycle round and round, by vibrating back and forth, sometimes not quite vibrating back into the practice of the back of step for quite a while, but when you're successful, in the next moment you may revert back across the border again, So that's why I like that expression, one of the reasons why I like that expression in the Fukan Zazengi about, you know, loitering about the frontiers.

[34:58]

Or, you know, what does it say? The other translation? What's the verb there? What are you doing? Scouting around? Initial excursions. Initial excursions. You're kind of like making these initial excursions on the border, you know, a little over the border and then back, a little over the border and back. So this language is kind of like going over the border a little bit and coming back, going over the border a little bit, coming back. As you kind of work your way more and more into it, back and forth, back and forth. Okay, so now maybe we can study the case. Washing the bowl, adding water to the pitcher. Yes? You have to give up the wooden duck to make the excursion. You get to give up the wooden duck? Make the excursion. Yeah. Yeah. Giving up the wooden duck is a meditator renouncing his way or her way of meditating.

[36:15]

You renounce any kind of meditation instruction that you can use that has been passed to you by Buddhas and ancestors or whatever. You renounce it. Give up the wooden duck. It doesn't mean you don't do it. It doesn't mean you don't do what? The way of the ancestors. That is the way of the ancestors. The way of the ancestors is not using anything. But not using anything, you can't then use, like Henry tried last week, you can't then use not using. You can't make not, when you hear about not using things, you can't then make that into words and talk about what they're not using out there. So the monk asked Jajo, are we the same or different? And Jajo says, different. He said, what's the difference? He said, well, you're used by the 24 hours, now use them. But the way to use 24 hours is not to use them.

[37:20]

Everybody uses the 24 hours. If you use the 24 hours, then they use you. If you use them, then they use you. If you can get a hold of something, it gets a hold of you. But Jojo doesn't use anything. Therefore, nothing can use him. That's how you use everything. There's no way you could put out there not using. Otherwise, if you put it out there, you've already used it. Even before you use it, just put it out there and not use it would be using it. The nature of not using, or not using is the nature of using, Because we're always using. But the way we're using, if you see the way you're using, you become very docile. In that docility, you learn this backward stuff. That's the mind that has no abode.

[38:20]

So the mind that has no abode is here right now. It's coming up right now while we read. Washing a bowl, adding water to a pitcher, is all aspects of the teaching, Buddha work. Hauling firewood, carrying water, is the miraculous power of sublime functions. Why can't you emanate light and make the earth move? So again, I don't mean to distract you, but I'll just give you something to look at. This is case 42 of the Blue Cliff Record. And this is a story about Lehman Pong.

[39:25]

Lehman Pong is the one who said this, made this statement. Hauling firewood and carrying water. is all the miraculous powers of sublime functions. He said that. And he said that, coming out of the question, he had the question, who is she who is not a companion of the world? That question is, what is the backward step? The backward step is to not be a companion of the world. Who is she who is not a companion of the world? I think in this translation, the question he asks is, What man doesn't keep company with myriad things?

[40:38]

Who is it that doesn't keep company with things? Who is it that isn't companion? The world is keeping companion with things. The definition of the world is, I keep companionship with things. I'm friends to all things. I confirm things. I practice things. I practice practices. I go to Zazen. I do Ki-nin. I'm a bad student. I'm a good student. This is keeping companionship with things, good and bad, for example. Who is it that doesn't accompany, that doesn't have companionship with things in the world? Who is that? So he asked Shur Tok, And Chirteau, as he was saying that, he was saying, who is it that, he asked this question a lot of people, who is it that's not a companion of the world? Who is it that's not a companion of the world? Chirteau covered his mouth.

[41:39]

Who is it that's not a companion of the world? And he woke up and said, my everyday affairs are no different. Only I myself naturally harmonize. No place is grasped or rejected. Nowhere do I go for or against. Who considers crimson and purple honorable? The green mountains have not a speck of dust. Spiritual powers and their wondrous functions, hauling firewood and carrying water, or vice versa. So that's what's being referred to here. Okay, so if you'd like to read this case, which is case 42, kind of matches this case in terms of number. It's very auspicious. So the commentator pulls this poem from case 42 of the Bluecliffe record as an introduction to this case.

[42:49]

So again... to intensify your vocabulary. Another way to say this is, as you study this koan, as you study this case, who is it that's not a companion of the world? Who's not a companion of things? Who is it that's not a companion of this case? Who is it that doesn't stand in a relationship to these words? The forward step is, I'm in a relationship to all things. Hopefully a good relationship. That's good. But still, me being in relationship to things is delusion. Well, is what we call delusion. It's not really delusion, because if I say it's delusion, then again, I'm in relationship to things. Is that okay? But if I say I just call it, that's what's called delusion, that's just a definition. So that's this case, and that's not the case here.

[43:55]

That's a story in this case where this poem comes from. Okay, now here comes the story. A monk asked a national teacher, John of Nanyang, what is the vairacana of one's own body? The national teacher said, bring me the pitcher of clean water. The monk brought the picture, the national teacher said, put it back where it was before. The monk asked, what is Vairoshana in one's own body? The national teacher said, the ancient teacher is long gone. Okay, so there's the story. Is there some great person who will tell me an understanding of this? George. May I use the coward cigarette?

[44:57]

No. Oh, then forget it. All right. Renee. The first line, I feel that the person is asking, what is enlightenment? in the first line. And I feel that the response that he's giving, almost that the answer is in the act itself, that the answer is as simple as getting water. Kind of the same thing as washing one's bowl, that the answer is in every act. And that clean water somehow symbolizes purity or complete attention or complete awareness. And... So then when he goes on and says, bring me the pitcher of water, I feel that he's saying, whatever you do, do it with complete attention. And then the comment about putting it back, I feel means don't alter it, like watching your breath.

[46:06]

You watch it go in, you watch it go out, but you don't change it in any way. And that the last line where he says the ancient Buddha is long gone means that it's right here in front of you. Good. I was thinking. And I was wondering. I was also fantasizing a little bit. I was fantasizing that you looked at those words and you had responses to those words. You looked at those words, you looked at the book, you thought something, and then you looked at your thinking and you reasoned, which is fine. And then I wondered where the...

[47:10]

where the back of step was coming into play in that process. I didn't see it. In this moment, you didn't see it. While you were speaking, I was imagining a process you were going through. The process I was going through right now? As you were talking, yeah. Yes, you've got it. And I felt like the words were kind of going in, going around in your head and stimulating you in various ways and coming back out through your mouth. I agree. So I didn't see how you were questioning the process of your thinking while you were doing that. As a result, I felt like that the language of the text... stimulated your language systems and then you just processed them as best you could and came up with what your language systems would give back. And it seemed to make sense to me what you were saying in that realm. But I couldn't see where this other dimension was coming in and giving the answer.

[48:20]

So are you saying that I'm not being vulnerable again? That's what you said two weeks ago. Are you saying the same thing? No, I don't think so, because I think you let me say this. Actually, you exposed your mental processes, I thought, quite courageously. And... And you even let me tell you what I thought, what I imagined was going on. So I didn't feel like you were invulnerable. But I couldn't see that your words were coming from a place of a different approach than the one I imagined. I couldn't see a...

[49:21]

I couldn't see that your words came from the nature of the process that I thought I was observing. And at the same time, it wasn't that I couldn't see that, but rather I didn't feel like you were checking into it, you were appreciating that the words were coming from the source of your thinking. I didn't feel like you were doing that. That was my guess. I think you're right. So because of that, what you said then, even though the words might be actually perfect. Because there was nice logic to what she said, and what she said didn't violate conventional reality. I mean, some people could have interpreted that, and I would have said, no, no, no. You can't play with the words that way. That violates just conventional use. But I didn't feel that case. I thought you were carefully using it in that realm.

[50:23]

So that answer could be a perfectly good answer, except that you have to renounce the process that you just use while you're using it in order for your answer to have your body in it. That's hard to do. It's hard to do. Well, it's impossible to do. But what you can do is, by examining yourself while you're talking, You renounce your talking. It's hard to renounce your activity and watch yourself when you're talking. That's hard. It's hard to give everything up. But it's impossible to get in there and try to do this differently. because then it would be exactly the same process. Right, because then I'd get frustrated, and then I'm going... Or even if you're successful, you would just be... You'd be frustrated. You wouldn't be able to do it, because you'd be frustrated. You would just do the same thing again.

[51:27]

Well, I am frustrated now. Well, that's... I can understand that. So, anyway, that's... That's one guinea pig who... offered her thinking for me to say, were you simultaneously renouncing the thinking or asking about the thinking while you were using the thinking? And Renee is saying, no, I guess. That's what I thought. That's what it looked like. although there's no sign of it somehow. It didn't really look like that. I just thought, that's my guess. That was my guess, and you could have told me not, and then you could explain to me how I was wrong. But that's what I'd like to do. I'd like to have somebody else tell me their understanding and see if you can, while you're explaining or expressing, you don't have to explain close to the whole koan like she just did, but while you're expressing what you understand, can you renounce the thinking which enables you to be able to talk?

[52:30]

You can't talk without thinking, but you can understand the koan without thinking. Understanding the koan is not thinking. Understanding the koan is understanding your thinking. And from that understanding your thinking, you can start expressing yourself. But as soon as you start to express yourself, you have to convert it into thinking again to get it out here for us to hear. But the question is, is it coming from the source of your thought, or is it coming just from the same track, forward track, you know, thought in following gear? Like I said last night, reverse is a very powerful gear in this business. So can you turn this around? Grace? Well, um... The opposite problem with this koan, because when the national teacher says, drink me a pitcher of clean water, what happened to me, I couldn't listen to the rest of the koan.

[53:34]

All I could see was the water. So, in some ways, and I just have a visual image. I mean, that's it. It's just sort of like this. No, a pitcher is a container, but this is kind of water that is pushing against the size of the container. But that's it. I couldn't then follow the train of thought. That's fine. So, did that take you anywhere besides going that far? Well, I find that I'm seduced by the image. I'm totally seduced by the image, so I don't want to think. Well, tell us about being seduced by the image so that you don't want to think. Is that okay? It's just kind of, it's a great place to hang out.

[54:35]

What do you mean great? It feels great, and it's really... Do you mean a positive sensation? Uh-huh. Very quiet. Kind of like sitting? Okay. So there we are with Grace. Maybe you could tell her to put it back. Put what back? The pitcher. Well, no, I think before I do that, I think I'll say, bring me the pitcher of clean water. What's happening now? What kind of mental activity is this? I really don't know.

[56:01]

Do you have any question? You don't have this question of what is Vairachana's own body? What is Vairachana in one's own body? You don't have that question? That's the question I called on, but that wasn't my question. What questions do you have? Yes. Can I just hang out here for a while? Is that your question? Yeah. Can I just hang out here for a while? Yes. Anybody else who wants to hang out someplace, go ahead.

[57:08]

I hope you don't mind. And if I ask you questions and it bothers you, just tell me to come back later. Mark? Your question, help me. It clarifies me. When you ask the question. Which one? No, you didn't ask the question. My question to Grace or my question to you? No, it wasn't a question. I'm sorry. What you said is bring a picture of clean water. And then I think you asked her if that clarified or helped. Didn't? I remember. Well, it helped me with the Lyra-Chan of the bubble zone by the energy in bringing a picture of clean water. Mm-hmm. The act of doing that helps to answer the question that the monk asked the national teacher. The act, not the thought, not the intellect behind figuring out what bringing the picture of clean water means.

[58:17]

And I find that when I'm talking to you enough, a horse in my throat. I'm observing that too. What is this question? What is Vairachana's What is Viracana in one's own body? What does that question mean to you? Anything? Well, it probably means a lot to me that I have a hard time defining it simply because I'm not quite sure what Viracana means. What does it mean? Is it energy? Viracana is the Dharmakaya Buddha. It's the true, it's the reality body of Buddha.

[59:26]

Vairacana Buddha is the all-pervasive, all-penetrating Buddha body. It's, you know, co-extensive with the cosmos. So what is Vairacana in your body? Well, it's your body, obviously, because Vairacana completely, completely, radiates you. But the other way to turn it is, which the guy says here, why can't you emanate the light and make the earth move? Vairachana emanates the light out into you. How about you emanating it back out? So what's Vairachana in your body? How is Vairachana going to come out of you? What's your Dharmakaya? What's your realization of the Dharmakaya Buddha? That's one way to ask this question. How is your body... Yes?

[60:29]

I just keep doing this here in this practice period. In the previous practice period, whenever I get all excited about something or I think I know something or learn something, then I go to the teachers or the people around me and I'm like, well, what do I do? What do I do? I remember the night of Martha's head student ceremony, and I read Linda, and I was like, well, what do I do now? And she said, dude, let's go eat cake. She went and had cake, and in the morning I was still upset, and I went to leave. It was in the kitchen, and I was like, well, what do I do now? And he handed me some bananas and asked me to make the yellow. up with the breakfast and that happens all the time here. I don't know. [...]

[61:31]

I don't know. [...] Yeah. And it's the next thing. Right. So now, that's fine. And now what about Vairachana's body? What about Vairachana in your body of those things? I guess it's just an action of doing the things. That's what the story seems to be saying, doesn't it? Pardon me? That's what the story seems to be saying anyway, right? Big monk asks, the teacher says, bring me some water. Right? Right. Pretty simple, huh, Jack? Well, yeah, I was like, that's what I thought. That's why I'm just kind of like, so that's [...] why I'm The question still is, in my mind, about the show of my life, with the grandness, most kind of develop all the beliefs.

[62:40]

And the question is, what does it mean? How does this show in my life, or what reminds me? Is it by our separate process? As if what? As if what? Is it by our separate process? One thing that you said was if you ever ask a theoretical and toolistic question, watch out. And with this one... Is that why you haven't been asking those kinds of questions? Honestly, have I not been? You haven't? So... So what I thought was, well, don't. They always usually answer a question like this with an act to the election.

[63:42]

And so I thought, well, maybe if I make tea, well, then that's Baruchana manifest. And then it was pointed out to me that if you make it constantly, that's also a manifestation of Baruchana. So... My mind is happy with that. With what? Knowing that whatever I do, whether or not, I don't know if it's true or not. [...] So you don't know whether it's true or not, but you like the idea. You feel comfortable with the idea that no matter what you do, Vairachana is there with you. Or whatever you do, that's Vyrochana's action. How would you say it? Yeah, yes. And I also have to remember that there's no difference. The difference between? Vyrochana and so-called me.

[64:44]

Whatever you do, there's no difference between so-called you and Vyrochana. But besides from the maybe, you liked that before the maybe, right? Yeah. Because your thinking, your thinking is not different from our time. Is that what you mean? So, how's that? That seems, maybe that's true that our thinking is is Vairachana, right? But not like Vairachana is over there and this is our thinking, but our thinking is Vairachana. Vairachana is not something different from our thinking. In a way, we like that, don't we? It is. Yeah, I noticed.

[65:49]

I've noticed. You go into the dining room, people are talking away. When I come into this class, people are talking. So you people seem to be able to talk. So that's good. Is that Virashana? Is it any different? And when you stop talking and I ask you a question and nobody answers, is that Virashana too? So is this story that simple? Yes. What? What did you say? No, it's okay. You can talk like that. This is really a free country.

[66:51]

Did you want to say something, Martha? I was just going to say, well, I guess it was just said that I'd stop when you and Grace were talking. The picture was just going back and forth, you know. It was just being passed back. Moving in, moving [...] in. Okay, so how are you feeling, Jennifer? Why are you asking me? Why? I don't answer why questions. All right. You don't answer hog questions. Can I ask you another question? Are you angry? Well, I was at the beginning of class because you started out with one game that was like, let's play true and false. Yeah. And then you started pinning people down. Pinning them down? Yeah, same way. You got angry? Yeah. But you're not anymore? I don't want to say anything about it because I didn't really want to talk about it.

[67:55]

And I didn't realize being angry until you asked me. At first, you suddenly put your attention on me, and I didn't like it. You didn't like me doing that? Yeah. How about now? How about if I look at you through the reflection of someone else's eyes? No? No attention at all? Is it okay if I ask Clay some questions? Paul? I feel something about if you ask a question that has a dualistic nature you have to watch out I feel like the whole reason I like being here is I like to watch out And the way he brought together Bhairachana Buddha and his one zhang bhai, not what is Bhairachana Buddha.

[69:05]

I think he was asking his teacher to bring forth something that was going to get him to watch out, maybe watch someplace else. And for me, the place that I really get whipped around is that the ancient Buddha is long gone. And there's something, there's some twist in that for me. It was the story that Wei Shan's what's the mind of an ancient Buddha, he was asked that he responded, walls, tiles, and pebbles. And there's something about the very simple, physical nature of that. If I were trying to do that, in one's own life, being brought forth by a pitcher of clean water, it whips me around when I come to a ancient Buddha. I've lost the ancient boot. The ancient boot is gone if I'm just stuck in the simplicity of this picture of water. Wait a second. That's also a birochalical body. So I feel this getting whipped around in this case.

[70:14]

Like going from something so simple. And yet I miss this ancient boot. Can you call it? What? you miss it in the whipping around? No. I mean, if I'm stuck just in a pitcher of water, in the simplicity of it, I'm missing this ancient Buddha. But if I'm thinking about Dharmakaya Buddha by Roshana, or what it looks like, I'm not going to realize how fabulous hanging out in this pitcher of water. And so I find myself kind of moving between these two kicks, and I don't feel settled here. I feel enjoyment getting whipped around you. Another element to this case is that it's not just one thing. The answer isn't just, it's not like, what is the virus showing up?

[71:18]

If one's in body, this is it. But it's bringing the water and then take it back. So there's coming forth and returning. There's doing something and then redoing. So there's a lot of movement happening. Barrett? Can I just, the movement is also like you saying this, I'm thinking now that In a way, this points to uselessness, I would say, as maybe the place of Viral Shana. Usually a pitcher is the thing we use, clean water is something we use. but here the movement is, it's coming forth and it's returning, but it's not being used at all, at least not in the ordinary way.

[72:27]

So, pitchers use those, waters use those, questions use those, three points at that, points at uselessness, like a place where Vajracana can neither say I am nor I'm not. This question cannot be asked. What do you mean the question cannot be asked? It sounds like something you can... I can see this. I said it points at the place which is useless. Yes, that part I was following well. But then when you said something about the question couldn't be asked, I didn't know what you meant. I think I added this out of not being concentrated.

[73:32]

Thank you. That's good. Scott, what's happening? I'm really stuck with this case. When he says... I love it when he says, you know, bring the pitcher of water. Seems really simple. Seems, you know, it pleases me. But then, he said, put the pitcher back. I just don't know what that means. That's where I am. So are you ready for what is it?

[74:39]

Are you ready to ask the question again? Which one? Well, the one that the person who put the picture back past. Is that your question? I'm ready to ask some. Maybe that question is fine. As I said on Sunday, one of the entrances into the backward step is these stories. They've got these stories out here, right? So, as we study these stories, we can try to practice the backward step while we study them. But also, you can use the stories as a way to learn the backward step. So the backward step is to have a living relationship with these ancestors who are in the story, who are dead. If this question, what is Bhairachana of one's own body, if that is your question, then in a sense you have a living relationship with these people if it's your question.

[75:42]

If it's not your question, I mean like you reject it, you have a living relationship too maybe. So do you have a living relationship with that question? Sounds like you have a living relationship with put the water pitcher back. you have a living relationship with the next question, which was also the first question. Are you ready for that next step? Or go back to the beginning and start over or whatever? I don't know if I can go back to the beginning. I mean, I still have to figure out what to do with this picture of water that I have on my hands when I pass through. Put it back. You have to figure out what to do with it. Do you have a living relationship with everything before that? Well, I sort of slid into that story. Well, you know, I ask this question. Do you have a living relationship with this story or not? Yeah.

[76:45]

Great. Lorraine? Lisa's bringing me the picture of creamy water. It reminds me of that other koan where someone says to someone, make my mind peaceful. Yes. And the Master says, bring me your mind. Yes. And the person says, well, I can't. And they say, well, then your mind is peaceful. Or I have already made your mind peaceful. Wow. Like he's saying, here it is. Here it is. It's manifest. It's evident. And then it goes away again. I put it back. And that's the nature of the daughter of John and Buddha and Paul. It's bigger. I mean, it goes away. You perceive it and you can't perceive it? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, I was going to say I stopped, but I can't resist calling upon her.

[77:58]

I think this one will also kind of backwards tap this kind of I'm making the action useless or letting it go back. So, it's this kind of movement in the story. Finding the uselessness of the actions. When we move it back, this is also this backwards step. As you look at the picture and you step back and you walk and you always come to another perspective or another possibility to see something. Pat?

[78:59]

I feel all evening I've been doing the Viral Chana Buddha body of this body, a kind of palpable stillness happens in this class every week as we all kind of lean together toward understanding. Carol? Earlier I thought there's something so funny and I learned about calling these public records. Because the place where they have been so private. That's why they call public records. Because there's something so private that's out in public. Usually this is a private matter. These are the rare cases that have somehow become public.

[80:04]

For some strange reasons, some of these inner experiences are now out on the wires. But this is an inner thing. But in that way we can get together in this situation and we can get help from each other of making our inner experience more vivid. That's why I often feel pain in this class, but tonight I felt more pain than usual. Was there more pain than usual tonight? Average? What? Was this more or less painful tonight than usual? Less. Less? But there is pain in this class. This class has pain in it. Not necessarily everybody having pain all the way through. Some people do. Of course, at a certain point, they start wondering what's going on.

[81:11]

But there is some pain here. And also, I think that there's a container for it. Because of the group, we feel encouraged to keep working with some difficulty, some life and death matter here. And so in this case, in some ways, I guess I'm on this issue of do you have a living relationship with the national teacher and this monk? And If you don't, how can that happen that you don't? Again, my feeling is, as I said before, we think we have living relationships with somebody, but if we do, then why don't we have a living relationship with somebody else? We have a living relationship with this person, why not with this person or this person?

[82:15]

Where's the blockage? What kind of mental activity is that that Suddenly there's not a living relationship. And then if you go down the list and suddenly you run into a dead person, well, how come that stops you? It's where you're stopped, you know. That's why to develop a relationship with these people opens us up to the dead spots in our own life. Leanne? I've actually been kind of... elated over here. I couldn't see you, Rajas. But I haven't known whether... Well... It was so vivid because I jumped right into the case, I guess, and because you've been saying that it's very slow process, so I imagine that perhaps I just barged in or something, but I guess I feel that I just want to say that because it was so vivid that

[83:20]

It's okay. There was the opening when he asked him to bring the pitcher of water, the monk. So, at that point, the monk had infinite possibilities of action, I suppose. And the one action that came up was, would you like some water? Would you like a drink of water? that felt very peaceful as a continuity, as a moment of continuity. And it didn't feel as though he was pressing the matter so much, as much as it was sort of inevitable in a way that if someone asked for a picture of Clearwater, they would be thirsty. And that somehow, when talking about the everyday actions of carrying water, drawing water, that it has this character of being so mundane that it still has that quality of, I think, care.

[84:38]

Or responding to perhaps the need for water. Well, I don't want to keep you people late, so I guess we should stop. I appreciate your enthusiastic participation.

[85:01]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_63.11