I finished making up some new ones. I have 50 copies of black and white charts that are available for free. I have various quantities of other charts that are available for the printing cost, which is about $3 each. So if anyone's interested in those, I'll put them out after the class. The black and whites? The black and whites are available right now. Black is in the balance. Got about 50 copies. Are they updated or are they the same? You might want to color one after you see the black and white. Yeah, they're updated from the previous ones. Are they bigger? No. Black and whites are the same size. Is the color like this? There's a size bigger than that. This is a small color. You see there's more people on this now. It's smaller. You can read it though. This is the new largest one.

[01:02]

Like you'd like people to pay for that? Yeah, I'd like them to just pay the printing cost. How are they going to do that? Go to you? Yeah, or put a jar on the table, and this is $3 if you've got it, or bring $3 next week if you take one tonight, you know, something. Would somebody put a jar on the table? Yeah. There should be one in that little room. You have, Reb, I also have a new printing of that, which is a little bit more colorful. Each chart comes with a cross-reference down. It has A, B, C, E, F across the top and numbers down the side, so you can look up on the chart and see, oh, who is this guy? Oh, he's this guy over here. In the factory, though. The names and the location on the chart. Hey, Christy. So, you're looking at this chart here. Right here. See right there? Yeah.

[02:04]

There's Lupu. Excuse me. I'm going to have to give this to you tonight anyway, so why not just fill it up now so people can see more of that. Okay, there's... There's Lupu. Lūphu is the disciple of Jāshāng. Lūphu and Jāshāng have a dialogue in page 35 of the Book of Trinity, which is called Lūphu Acquiescence. They come from Yaoshan. They're not Soto, but they're from Yaoshan. So, Yaoshan had, you know, three big disciples on this chart. One was Yuen Yuen, in our lineage, come, you know, Yulian and Dongshan down to us.

[03:11]

The other big disciple is Da Wu, who is Yulian's brother. And he's Jia Shan's teacher, and Jia Shan is Lu Pu's teacher. And, okay, so... A lot of people have trouble with the names in this class, Chinese names, and I think all of us who study Zen have trouble learning all these Chinese names, and that's part of the culture here. We can translate them into English, but still you have to, you sort of have to learn, this is your family if you're a Zen student. At first you might not like to learn about your family because it's a lot of work, but... The more you learn, the more you realize what a wonderful family it is. It may take a few years for you to learn some fluency about all these people, but the cross-references and so on develop a feeling for how natural and organic the whole process is.

[04:28]

It takes a while, and it takes some work. But, you know, there's no hurry to learn these names. It's just until you learn them, you'll be bugged by these names to some extent because you can't remember who's who and stuff. So it's good to spend some time, you know, when you're studying a case, look it up in the chart and see where the person's... listen to the whole big picture and make associations and look up other stories and see how they appeared there and so on and so forth. This is part of what studying Zen tradition is about. What's part of what studying anything is about. As I mentioned in the talk the other day, you know, about when a kid learns a language, They learn one word at a time, probably, that they specialize on for a week or a month or a day.

[05:33]

And they see that word everywhere while they're learning that word, until they get it down. In the same way with these things, when you're studying the dialogue between Lin Ji and Pu Hua, where Ji calls Pu Hua an ass, a donkey, You might, you know, if you're a scholar of the case, you might start studying donkeys. Jan Gieda Cezanne, when he studied that case, he studied exhaustively donkeys. He tried to find out everything he could about donkeys. When he went to China, he asked camel herders and stuff if they knew about donkeys, what donkeys might have sounded like in the Tong dynasty. He bought tons of books on donkeys and stuff. Chinese books on donkeys to find out what donkeys mean and meant in those days. There's no area that you're studying that you leave something out necessarily.

[06:41]

So we're in case 41 still and The basic situation which this case lays out and which I've been talking with you about in other contexts, and I talked last Sunday about some more in a little bit different language, is that one side, one side is, you know, existence. It's one situation. This is so for approval or affirmation, that's one gesture that he makes. And in that realm, in the realm of existence, there's existence and non-existence and so on. Then there's another realm where you try to avoid that, protect yourself from the pitfalls of any kind of existential categories, where you say, oh, it's all relative, it doesn't matter,

[07:46]

and so on, that's nihilism. Or you could, so I said, as I said the other day, one side is self-righteousness, the other is nihilism. And self-righteousness can be, this is true, but also self-righteousness is to say this is not true. And to believe, when you say that, to believe that the thought in your mind that this is true, that that's a reality, of course that's self-righteousness. It's okay to think this is true. Like, it's okay to think 2 plus 2 is 4. Under certain circumstances, that's probably what it is. But that doesn't have to be like a reality or a fundamental truth. But we sometimes get that way about things. Quite often we get that way. Usually we're that way. Or this is not true. And then the other extreme is, these kinds of arguments, since the other extreme would be, well, since these kinds of arguments are just troublesome and ill-advised, the other extreme would be, it's all relative, everything's empty, and nothing matters.

[08:58]

So those are the two extremes which he lays out. One is cutting your head off to avoid the constriction of categorical calculating thought. The other is calculating categorical thought. Those are kind of like, what do you call it? I feel like create a cauldron or a container in which we practice. And we touch those walls all the time. And touching those walls is an error. And if you know it's an error, then you're right. You're back in the middle. And when you're in the middle, you're out of touch with those worldly tendencies, and you don't know what's going on. And so, in terms of those extremes and everything in between, this is the situation he's asking about, all right? And the balanced place in between those two extremes is, you can call by the name the inconceivable or

[10:09]

the middle way, the balanced state of mind, which has no characteristics to determine that it's balanced, and so on. And this is the situation of study. And on Saturday we studied case 42 of them. Blue Cliff record, and that story is, that case is about Layman Pond, and a few weeks ago I brought up that story, not that story, but I brought up some stories about Layman Pond. He went around, he asked, he asked Shirto, and he asked Matsu, who is, who is it? Or who is she? That has no companions in the world, who has no worldly companions. Who is it that has nothing to do with the world?

[11:13]

Who is that? He asked both those teachers, probably he asked others too. So Lu Pu, I think, is asking the same question. He's gesturing towards as one who has no relations with the world. And the world means, the world is, This is so, and this is not so. That's the perimeter, that's the container, that's the worldly container. And holding those is worldly affairs. So giving up, holding to those inner extremes, you enter into Dharma practice. The self is in those extremes. So if you can, give up those extremes, then come to the middle between them, and then listen to what these people say.

[12:24]

And the head monk says, the green mountains are always moving their feet. That's why I hold up the torch in bright daylight. And Muthu feels this is not, the timing's off on this. Now I propose to you that in this balanced place where you have no, where you've given up all your kind of like calculating equipment to figure out what the right answer would be. The timing, of course, is very important. If you think of something to say, and then you check to calculate whether it's okay, you just missed. You're off beat. Timing's off. If you retreat back into measurement again, forward to one of those extremes, then even though it's a good statement, maybe heartfelt,

[13:37]

panyin will be off. And in case 42, after Laman Phong is studying with Yaoshan, the ancestor of Lupu, after he studied with him for 17 years, he took his leave for some reason, never becoming a shaved head monk. And Yaoshan, among others, had great respect and praise for the layman. And as an expression of that, he had a kind of like what I call an escort of ten great monks walked into the gate. And when it was snowing, and Laman Pong said, good snowflakes. So I see Laman Pong in this little place And snowflakes, you know, well, they seem to fall.

[14:42]

But anyway, snowflakes appear. And these snowflakes that appear to that mind are good snowflakes. Or beautiful snowflakes. Everything that appears in that space is beautiful. Because everything that appears in that place is the Pentecostal rising. And he says, beautiful or good snowflakes, they don't fall somewhere else. And so that was, that was me. Now you may think, or I think too, you know, oh, that means the snowflake fell. But really, it isn't that the snowflake fell. The snowflake falling was an action. was an action of Laman Pong. And then he spoke and said a good snowflake, but good snowflake is no more or less an action than snowflake falling for him.

[15:49]

And if it's the same mind that good snowflake, then saying good snowflake is just as good as the snowflake. Everything that happens in this place is spontaneously good. So the head monk said, blue mountains are always, green mountains are always moving their feet. But apparently the timing was off. Apparently he didn't trust. that mind and got ahead or behind it a little bit and said a very nice thing then the other monk said you know i begged the teacher putting aside putting aside your gestures i begged the teacher not to ask and apparently his timing was just about right or just right which led the teacher to ask uh Ask him to, you know, you elaborate.

[16:57]

See, let's do that again. And he... I think, what did Lu Pu say, tell me more? Not quite, tell me more, is that what he said? Not quite, say more. So he said, you know, I can't say it all. And Lu Pu said, I don't care if you can say it all. Is that what he said? And then the monk said, You said I have no attendant to answer the teacher. I have no attendant to answer the teacher, for I as attendant cannot answer the teacher. Now I think again, I would suggest to recreate the same thing. renouncing worldly affairs, relinquishing all the activity of the mind.

[18:00]

Now again, do you understand what relinquishing activity of the mind means? Is that clear to you now? No? Again, the context that Luko has created is a way to gesture towards or indicate relinquishing the activities of the mind. Can you see how that's the case? Anybody that can't, that have troubles understanding that language, how his... His statements about adding a head or cutting a head off is explaining about relinquishing the activities of mind. Any question about that? No? Somebody must have a question.

[19:02]

I do. The other day on Saturday, is it like when you were speaking about meddling with them? Right, yeah. Give up meddling. And is it clear to you how adding a head to what's happening is meddling, and cutting a head off is meddling? Yeah. It doesn't mean that you don't think, oh, that's Carol, or that's Steve. It doesn't even mean that you don't think, oh, Steve's pretty good. But the thought, Steve is good, that language, You don't add a head to that. You don't say, that's true. You don't substantiate that thought. The mental activity, I can't help, you know, as soon as I see him, I think Steve, or I think man, or I think, you know, blue-gray sweater. It's too fast. It's not some kind of control trip. It's just not doing something unnecessary. What's unnecessary is to contaminate our thinking with this meddling

[20:06]

with this adding a head to our thinking or taking a head away from our thinking. That's optional. And in fact, there is a state right now where you're not meddling with your thinking. So when we say renounce worldly affairs, and we say renounce or relinquish the activities of mind, we mean open your eyes to the mind that's already not messing around. You don't have to create that mind. That would be another kind of messing around. So this is again instructions to enter the realm where we study non-action. But non-action doesn't mean nothing's happening. It means there's no adding heads or taking heads away from what's happening. But we're familiar with adding heads and taking heads away so we feel secure and in pain in that realm. We're familiar with it. We can use our mental powers there.

[21:07]

This other realm, we feel weak and we have no power. We have no personal power. There's the power of our life which is generating thoughts, but we have no power. We've relinquished our meddling power, our meddlesome involvement with our thinking. We're just letting things be. In other words, we're valuing what is over what we can use. We give up the uselessness of our mental powers to mess with our thinking, and we let our thinking just be. Okay? So that's the situation I imagine this discussion in the teacher's room later that night is occurring, just as I see the earlier discussion happening in that same realm. And I think that the teacher was saying, let's play in this field.

[22:12]

The head monk got off a beat and got scolded. He unsung. He seemed to be on time, trusting his mind, did well, and now he's going to try again in Eden. And the teacher gives him this instruction, again, I think, to check out whether, how he's going to work with this language, these snowflakes. The teacher's going to throw some snowflakes on Jnana-san and see if Jnana-san says, good snowflakes, or, you know, how he responds to these events. These events which are, for him, his own thinking. Okay? Now, do you follow this idea that if there was such a thing as a snowflake falling, then I have no argument with that. But for us, when a snowflake falls, that's an action. Do you understand that's an action for most of us?

[23:13]

Mental action. You think snowflake. You mean the naming of it? Just the image of it. You can't... If you see a snowflake separate from the sky, then there's an image there. Image distinguishing. Yeah. You have a concept there. Snowflake. When you do that, that's a thought. You did something. And if you're into being a self, that's karma. Okay? That's an action. But it can be an action that's untambered with, that spontaneously arises, or it can be an action... that's coming from these categories. But I think usually, when we say, if snow has fallen, and he said, good snowflake, well, just before he said, good snowflake, he did the thing of seeing the snowflake. That's mental action. As much, no more or less than saying, that's good snowflake, okay?

[24:20]

So now the teacher is making these sounds, You should understand the teaching of my late master. In front of the eyes, or in front of the mind, the character... In front of the eyes, there's no... there's no thing. Right? Yes. In front of the eyes, there's no thing. There's no dharma, character dharma. The meaning or the mind is before the eyes. The meaning or mind is before the eyes. Can you see a snowflake? But you don't see a snowflake. Something happens out there that affects you and you look back in your mind and come up with snowflake. In other words, you say what's happening out there, and you use your mind to say what's happening out there.

[25:23]

Or, the other way is, in order to make meaning out of what's happening, you bring something from your mind and say, that means this. So he's listening to this instruction, and hopefully, while he's listening, he's observing exactly the teaching happening, okay? This applies to his actual experience of hearing these words. And when he hears these, when the teacher makes that sound, he then goes into his own mind and pulls something out of his own mind. He doesn't hear the teacher's words out there. He pulls something from his own mind out. We all do that. But Hopefully, again, let's give him credit for doing it in this unique space of not grasping the process. The next part of the statement is, that is not something before your eyes, not in the reach of eyes and ears.

[26:34]

Ears and eyes. Okay, now, what's that about? I laid out the basic situation, now it's time for you to work. I did the easy part, now you do the hard part. And don't worry, if you don't understand, there's no problem, because our hero doesn't understand either. But you should work to not understand. George? The meaning that he is referring to, he says, that meaning is before the eye. Is that just mind? I mean, that is not something before the eye. It's not written here, is it not? Is he just referring back to mind?

[27:37]

Is there anything more? I don't know. What are you asking now? You said you wanted to know what we thought the meaning of the second half of the phrase was. I don't know if I said that. I think I just said, you know, whatever, anyway. What about this? It is not something before your eyes. It is not in the reach of ears and eyes. What's that about? What does that add to the previous part? another way to put it. Why couldn't you just stop there and just say that? Okay? That's basic instruction of like Yogicara Buddhism, okay? There's not, when you see things out there, you don't see things out there because we don't let things be out there.

[28:40]

We always convert anything that's happening to us, anything that's impinging upon our senses, we immediately make meaning out of it. The world's happening to us, a world which is not us is happening to us, little by little, moment by moment, and we keep making meaning out of it. Our world is totally covered with meaning. There's gaps in it, I know, but basically it's meaningful. And the reason why it's meaningful is we're referring All the cards we're using to make sense out of what's happening to us are all meaningful cards. We don't reach back and pull out non-meaningful cards. If we do, we feel upset. We have a nervous breakdown or something because we're pulling out unmeaningful stuff out of our own head for what's going on. That's the first part. But also that word meaning means mind. You pull your mind out to interpret physical experience. You don't know any physical... We don't mentally... We're not knowing of any physical experience except it's converted into our mind.

[29:50]

That's the first part. Now, my question is, what is the second part of that instruction from this Zen teacher had? Okay? What's the part beyond all of that? How so? It can't be reached by eyes and ears. Well... Beyond... Well, but... But... You know, I'm thinking. But eyes and ears didn't reach it in the first place. Correct. Okay. So you think that's just an elaboration of the fact that the eyes and ears don't reach what's happening? This is something that stands up before that. It stands up before or outside of eyes and ears or perception of affections. Do you think he's not referring to something that's before perception? Before even the sense parties are stimulated? It doesn't have anything to do with perception.

[30:51]

Okay. So when you read that, you think he's referring to something that has nothing to do with sense perception or mental or imagination. The inconceivable, it seems like consciousness. The inconceivable would be inaccessible to mind or senses, right? Imaginations don't reach the inconceivable. even though we have imaginations and ideas of it, it doesn't reach it. And of course the senses don't reach it, because senses, that's not what senses are about. Okay? Sylvia? The sense of meaning is so automatic that it's illogical to us. I think he's talking about the process of making something with it. Did you say meaning is so automatic that it's illogical?

[31:56]

The process of meaning is so automatic that for us to think about it is illogical. Illogical. Right. Okay. And what more did you say after that? Did you say something further? Yeah, but it was just the same. Okay. Kerwin? Um, the way I take it is that, which is sort of perception or reality, it's not something before the eyes because it's, that would be like in relation to the eyes, that would be the eyes seeing something else that's outside of the eyes. But the way I take it is like there's only, there's only the perception, there's only the what's there, there's only what's happening. It's not in reach of ears and eyes because it's just happening. I understood the last part.

[33:02]

It's not in reach of ears and eyes because it's just happening. But the part you said before, I wasn't sure what you meant. If you want to say that again, I don't know if you want to say that again. Sure. The last part. You hear that language? Say it again, that language, that last part. There's not something before the eyes. There's not something in reach of the ears and eyes. There's just the experience. There is something in reach of ears and eyes, right? Color and so on is in reach of ears and eyes. But what's happening is not in reach of ears and eyes because what's happening includes ears and eyes, right? So ears and eyes can't reach. what includes them. They can only reach what's not them. And they can't reach all that's not. Actually, they can reach, excuse me, I take a breath. They can reach everything that's not them. The ears and eyes reach everything in the universe that's not them.

[34:06]

But they cannot reach what's happening because what's happening includes them. Well, like, for example, right now you're looking at me, okay, and you can, or you're looking over this way, and you see something, you know, which we're saying, you're making meaning out of me, you convert me into something meaningful, you've got a You've got a repertoire of meaning-makers, meaning-making, and you convert me into that program. Alright? So, that kind of meaning, or that kind of imagery, is within reach of your mind. In fact, that's what your mind reaches. It reaches and grasps meaning. And it uses... You have a bunch of meaningful images that you grasp. Alright?

[35:09]

However, What's happening cannot be reached by your meaning process, because what's happening is the whole process of perception, the whole process of making meaning, which includes you. So you, or your ability to reach and grasp something, is included in what's happening. So you can't reach what's happening because it includes the reaching. Something has to reach Something then would have to reach your reaching. You can reach me as an image, but you can't reach the whole process. You could be it. You are it, yeah, you can be it, you are it. You are it, but you can't grasp it. It's not within your reach. But there's one more thing, and that is, The other statement, which I want to know if you think that adds anything, that is, and that is, and that's what Taigen's adding is, that is not something before the eyes.

[36:25]

I think that's, that way I think, both of those statements I think relate to what Kerwin's saying. That is not something before your eyes, it's not in reach of your eyes. It's just what's happening. Yes. I have a question, and this may be the question that you're asking us, but when he says that, the that that is not something before the eyes, is he talking about that whole process of the line before? I think so. Okay. Okay. Now. Yes. I have this sense that I'm looking at you or the sounds or my voice That the meaning that's in my mind is the thing holding it together. Holding what together? All your photons, which are assembled here. All my foot dance?

[37:31]

That the rods and cones in my eyes which are breaking you down into all kinds of little teeny-weeny little segments and it's all getting reassembled constantly and disassembled. And that I have the sense that the meaning that is in the mind is holding it together. Holding together in your mind? In my mind. You think it's holding together outside your mind? No. And that it can't be reached because my meaning is conditioned. What can't be reached? That. It's not in the reach of. that what I'm seeing right now is all, the meaning that I'm, that's happening in me at this time is all conditioned.

[38:38]

Yes, that's right. Okay. Do you want to stop there? Well, it seems to be related then to the next sentence, which is, which are guest and which is host. Is that which I would call conditioned is guest? Mm-hmm. And what's host? The is-ness, whatever is natural, truth. The non-meddling. Okay, so how is the non-meddling related to the conditioning or the conditions? So we have a situation here, a conditioned situation, right? Where we're conditioned to refer back to our mind to interpret or cope with what's happening to us in the sensory world.

[39:45]

Something happens to us. It affects our eyes or whatever. It creates nervous impulses. Nervous impulses go to the brain, and the brain sort of starts to try to cope with that information. And basically the way it copes is it says, it must be something like what happened before. So which of the things that happened before is it? And then there's a big shuffle. They come up with one of the things that happened before. or an average of all the things that happened before, or some kind of other combination of what happened before. But anyway, it's all made in terms of what's happened before, even though this thing never happened before. And that's why they're so upset. That's why the nervous system is there, because this didn't happen before. It's only happening now. And that's why we are sensitive to it. And it's good that we are. That's part of our life. But we can't stand to, like, take it raw, and so we convert it into what happened before. That's a conditioning process. Okay, now, he says the conditioning process is the guest. Okay? What's the relationship between non-meddling, the guest, and the host?

[40:51]

Did you say non-meddling was the host? So what is non-meddling with the guest or with the conditioning process? How is that? It supports it. The most roused, the most... It supports all that meddling. What supports? The host supports the meddling? Yeah. That's interesting. He's saying the host is not meddling, and you're saying the host supports the meddling. Well, it just allows it to happen. If it entertains? Now we have... I think we just made these situations a little bit complicated. He said, he suggested that the host was not meddling with the process of conditioning, or the conditioned process, okay? Now, to say then, talk about not meddling with the meddling, okay? Meddling is not... There's conditioned process and you can also meddle with the conditioning process, okay?

[41:55]

That's more conditioned process. So basically we've got a conditioned process and meddling with it is unnecessary but also enters right into the conditioning. So we still have basically a conditioned thing. To meddle with the guest situation is more guest in terms of I think what he's suggesting. No, I was thinking of actually a very good host, and everything's set up for the guests. So the guests can come and behave in any way that they want. But the host just set things up so nicely that if they want to be a very bad guest, they can. They can wreck the whole house. But everything's provided. She's there, and of course, pretty by night. And guests is just very good. I mean, the host is a very good support system for the guest. Right. And whether the guest is there or not, I mean, the guest can leave, but the host always knows how it's nice for the guest.

[42:56]

Okay. So, in that way of looking at it, what non-meddling means is complete support of the conditioning. Okay. And what is conditioning? What is support of conditioning? What supports conditioning? It's action. Huh? Action. Well, action, yeah. Conditioning. Huh? No. What? Conditioning. Conditioning supports conditioning. Conditions, causes and conditions are what support conditioning, right? Conditioning phenomena are made out of conditions, causes and conditions, right? Does that make sense? So one way to understand this would be the host is the causation of the phenomena, of the conditioned phenomena. Causation of the conditioned phenomena is not the conditioned phenomena. Matter of fact, causation of the conditioned phenomena is complete freedom in avoiding the phenomena, which is a conditioned phenomena.

[44:07]

So we could approach the host as the complete support of the thing, and the complete support of the thing is very much like, almost identical to, not meddling. When you completely support something, you don't have to meddle with it anymore. It's just been supported. It's just been uplifted into appearance. So conditional appearances... supported by causes and conditions, we could call that the host. But the host is also, although it's the support, it is also the transcendence of the conditionality, hence the avoidance of the conditionality. So, the host of the condition of evil is avoiding evil. But avoiding evil is not going someplace else in evil. Avoiding evil is actually all the things that support evil. But all the things that support evil is the avoiding of evil.

[45:14]

So if you stand separate from evil and avoid it, you're just part of the conditioning. But if you then include that you're maneuvering around evil, If that's taken into account too, then you're part of the host. Part of the host. And then the totality of all that, including you, avoids evil. Now, in this process, in you spot, what the conditioning and what the support... what the condition and the condition, what the condition and the support of the condition is, what the host and the guest are in this process that he's describing. Can you say that again? Can you now see the host and the guest in this process of perception, in this process by which we see things? Can you see the host and the guest, or can you see how a conditioned appearance appears, and can you see what supports it

[46:25]

and can you see how it supports it, completely determines it and doesn't add or subtract anything from it. Yes? I don't want to see it. I want to experience it. Well, good for you. You're jumping ahead to try to be like the monk. You say, I don't want to. Someone else could say, I can't. You see? Now, I'm setting the trap again. Just like Luke was at the trap, please distinguish your host and guest. Now I'm saying, distinguish appearance and its causation. But really it's a good answer to say, I don't understand, isn't it? Because again, if you understand, then you're putting it back, you're putting the process back in the realm where it's something you understand, but then the process, the issue of host and guest, the issue of appearance and causation is now again something within reach of eyes.

[47:26]

which again, you'll interfere with that and screen that and make that into something meaningful, which you can grasp. So then you can understand it. But this monk, this monk says, I can't, saying I don't want to. Mark's similar, I think, I don't want to, or I can't. I think I can't's better, I think she changed to I can't. Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't do that. What if you really can't? What if you really can't? Well, then, look at that. Quarter. What happened to those beans? Do you have them? Where are they? Did you find out whose they were? Oh, wait a second. What if you really can't? then you're on the next line here. And I'll say, you should. Now, even though I think that's really good to say you can't, because in fact, in this situation, you can't.

[48:29]

I mean, that's true. Otherwise, if you say you can't, then you're back up violating the instruction. You're disagreeing with the instruction. If you follow the instruction, I think it would make sense, and you say, I can't. I can't understand. I can't distinguish. I can't be outside the process to distinguish host and guest. How could you? You can be outside the process and distinguish guest. But you can't be outside the process to distinguish host. You can't. You can't understand. That's a good answer, for starters. But then he doesn't let it go at that, Grace. Great. Here's my question about it. If you turn into Renaud, if you sit and say, okay, in some ways, for there to be a guess, the mind always has to be looking out, outward. Either the sense apparatus has to be registering something that then comes in, there's a relationship between out and in.

[49:43]

where guest is concerned. But if what you do is you try to find the guest inside without looking outward, and you can't find it, you're not identifying host, but you're stopping for an instant, aren't you, the relationship between guest and host? Fine. Well, uh, Tell me again, what do you think is stopping the relationship between guest and host? How do you do that? I guess another way to say it is I kind of think of the mind as playing. The mind loves to play. Yes. And the guest-host relationship is very much about the play of mind. Yes. And the host is letting, it's what Michael was saying about conditions arise so that the mind gets to keep playing.

[50:48]

And it's being a wonderful host by letting the guest play. But if instead of If you turn the mind around and try to then see the play, you can't see the play anymore. That I agree with, but the language you were using before about... How did you put it? The guest... Did you say the guest is playing? Right. The host lets the guest play, but if you turn it around... The host lets the guest play, okay? The host allows the appearance and disappearance of the guest. Yes? But if what you can do, if you turn it around to try to find the guest in here, wherever, and you don't see the guest, in that instant there is no guest-host relationship.

[51:49]

If you turn it around and try to find the guest... You don't have to turn around to find a guest, though. If you turn around, you don't find a guest. If you turn around, you don't find a guest. Right. If you turn around, you don't find a guest. What do you find, is it? When we talk about turning the mind around, okay, what does that mean? Turn the mind around. The usual way is that First of all, it means turn. Okay? Usually we think what's out there is not us, even though we always refer to our own equipment to interpret what's out there.

[53:02]

So what we're seeing out there is very much our own mind, our own meanings that we have available to us. All right? Those appearances are called guests. We can call them guests tonight. Guests or dusts. Anyway, they're visitors if things have happened. And they seem like they've come at us, but of course they're created from ourself. Now, this is a new interpretation of host. Host would be the one who provides, not the one who provides, but the material you provide to imagine that something's outside yourself. But really that's part of the host, not in terms of the total causation of the guest. If we say the host is all that supports the guest, rather than just the ability of the mind to make something that's happening outside, to guess that what's happening outside is something inside, to use something inside to guess that what's outside, and then call what's inside, outside.

[54:10]

That's the usual process of perception. Now one idea of the host is the host is the mind that you pull the material out to call the guest. Michael was suggesting a bigger meaning for the guest and that is the whole process by which you do that. And call the host not the whole process, but the appearance that arrives out of the process, the conditioned product of the process of perception, call that the host. You call a guest all that supports it, rather than just a guest be the fact that you got the material for the host, you got the identity of the host from yourself. Okay? If you do it that way, if you do it that way of having the host be some material you got from your own mind to guess at what's happening outside, then host and guest are both conditioned phenomena.

[55:16]

And basically they're in the same realm, which we can use talk that way. But if you want host and guest to be complementary in terms of the whole process of liberation, then it might be good to use host as something which is completely separate and free from guest. And yet, the ability to support guests, because you don't want hosting guests, you don't want liberation from the guest to be separate and unconnected to the host. Otherwise, the guest would be eternally doomed to birth and death. He would be eternally doomed to coming in and out the door. But the fact that it's coming in and out the door, or, you know, being entertained in whatever way, the fact that that's supported by something is exactly the reason why it can be free. Because the support of whatever is happening is not the thing.

[56:19]

The support of what's happening is always free of what's happening. If you call that the host, then we're talking in terms of liberation from the conditioned and the conditioned. And the host and guest are very close in that case. You can't have one without the other. They're non-dual. And the completion, the completeness of the guest process exactly touches the host process. And if you want to talk about which is which, You can talk about which is which if you want to exemplify. So if you want to say what's going on and tell which is which, then you can say this is the guest. But if you want to talk about the host, maybe you say I can't understand.

[57:27]

I can't understand. However, when you say I can't understand, the host is right there. supporting you saying that. It's allowing you to be a person who says, I can't understand. However, the teacher then says to him, you should understand. It was okay that he said he can't understand, but now he says you should understand. In other words, it's possible to be dynamic here. And then he says, I really don't understand. This is very interesting, this next part. Yes, Becca. I don't remember what order she used, but I missed the thing about the guest covering the host. The guest covering the host? Who used that?

[58:29]

Did Grace use that word? I did. I said the guest covers the host. That's right, but I didn't think I said that. Did I say that? The guest does cover the host, and the host covers the guest. When you look at the host, you can't see the guest. When you look at the causation of something, you can't see the thing. The thing disappears. Can you look at it? Pardon? Can you look at the host? You can look at the host. You can look at the causation of something. Like I can look at the causation of you, but when I see the causation of you, I don't see you. You disappear when I see the host. If you look at evil, all the causes of evil, if you look at all what makes evil, evil disappears. When you look at evil by itself without seeing its causes, you can't see the causes and you think evil is real. And you can grasp it. And you know what it is. or a person. So that's the character of host and guest is they hide each other.

[59:30]

This is also this right in the light there's darkness, right in the host there's the guest. But don't pretend like, you know, you're seeing the guest, like you can sort of pull a little corner of the host up and see the guest behind you, you can't. The guest completely hides the host, the host completely hides the guest. The darkness hides the light, the light hides the darkness. In this image, the host is the darkness and the guest is light, in the light and dark thing. Okay, I don't know who was next. Well, how did you, so you, actually, Becca was talking about covering the host and the guest and all that. So what was your leading up to? I think that was it. I wasn't sure. I misunderstood everything. Do you understand now? I didn't learn to say that, but did I say that?

[60:32]

Anyway, I agree. I think that's what it's called. That's one way to say it. Yes, John? Are we back in the snowflake now? Yes, we are. What does it mean that, and is this related at all to that part about the host's view of the host? What is the host's view of the host then? What are you referring to, the host's view of the host? The host within the host, are you talking about? Yeah, I like the translation where it says the host's view of the host better. But it's that same thing, the host within the host. Yeah, but, yeah. The other translation says the host's view of the host, which seems to tell me something else. How does that relate to the host and guest he's talking about here, and what would that be, that host within the host, or host's view of the host? Well, what comes to my mind is that it's liberation from liberation.

[61:38]

I missed somehow pinning down what you meant by host. I got the guest part. That's what the host within the host is, is not pinning down the host. And I think that that's what this is about too. This is about this guy not pinning down the host. And that's why this is a very poignant case in many ways. We have this dynamic here where he's supposed to pin down the host and guest, and he's not pinning down the host. Okay. Renée. I feel like he's saying that he could equally have said, it doesn't matter, they are the same. Whether you say the guest is meddling, conditioning, or whatever, the minute you separate anything into guest and host... then you're in trouble, so it really doesn't matter because they're the same thing.

[62:44]

He could have said that, but then he wouldn't have been in trouble. What you're saying is, I think, noncommittal. He put himself on the line by saying he didn't understand. And a teacher then pushed him and said, you should. What you're saying is noncommittal. It's reasonable. I feel it's reasonable. as far as I can tell, but it doesn't provide anything to pull on. What do you mean? It's a status quo, it seems to me. You can say it again, but that's how I felt. I felt like you covered your bases. You didn't make yourself vulnerable. He's making himself vulnerable. He would have been just as good to say he did understand, then the conversation would have been upside down. And then he could have said something different. But I feel like what you said is correct, but this process goes forward when you take a position, standard trade play.

[63:47]

Albert? When Wu Pu says, you should understand, is he demanding liberation from liberation? I don't know. I'm not sure yet what's happening there. I feel I can't say yes to that. I think that that's what this host within the host or host view of the host is. I'm not sure what stage we're at in this story, in that line. It's how it strikes me. Roger. When he says, I don't understand, is he pointing at the host? Is he pointing at the host? I mean, it feels to me like he's pointing at the host by saying that. Well, in a way, yeah. Local was saying to him, you really should. He's saying the same thing he said earlier in the day.

[64:51]

Point more, show me more. Point better. Well, he's pointing at the host by saying he can't point at the host, is what he said. He said, I can't point at the host. So it's his indirect way of pointing at the host. The nature of the host is you can't understand it. All right? So it's a gesture towards the host by saying that. But it also could be a gesture towards the guest, couldn't it? Because the guest is something which is in the realm of understanding and not understanding. Right? So by saying, I can't understand, you could be talking about the host or the guest, couldn't you? Because you can't understand the host. It's beyond understanding. But in regard to the guest, you could not understand. The host you can never understand, but the guest you can understand and not understand. So saying, I don't understand, could be referring to both.

[65:53]

So he's doing fine, isn't he? He's making a statement, putting himself on the line, and not biasing himself. Now the teacher says, We should switch over to the other side now. Because on the other side... Oh, and part dissolving bolted. Yeah, not only that, but you're vulnerable on that side because you can't understand the hose. So if you say you understand, you're done for. And I'm saying you should do it anyway. Because you can't understand the hose. So you should understand it. But now something else happens. You could hear it another way. Now something else happens. The teacher tells him what he has to do. He has to violate the rules, but he won't do it. And he violates them again because he has to violate the rules to get the rolling ball, and he won't do it.

[66:56]

He won't do what he has to do. What you hear, I really don't understand, is a little different. I understand. It is different. But he's saying, I'm not going to do that. Well, you have to give up the rolling ball in order to get the rolling ball. Well, yeah, that's true, too. But anyway, in a sense, he seems to be being dull, right? But he's purposely dull. Well, now I'd like to go to the end where it says, do you understand the last part? If one doesn't get in fiefed as a baron, then one is free. The last thing before that I'd say is, right?

[68:02]

If one doesn't get in feet as a baron, one is free. Does that mean if one doesn't get succession, one is free? Is that what it means? If you don't get the rodent bowl, you're free? Hmm? If one doesn't get in fief as a baron, one is free. What's that word? In fief? Yeah. You get a fief. You know what a fief is? No. It's in a lock, it's in a state, given in medieval... You know, in medieval system of government, you give certain people feats on the state, all the land. But if one doesn't get in a fief, one is free.

[69:06]

Okay? If one doesn't get in a fief, one is free. That's it to end here. After saying that Lu Pu... Because he does something dali. He carries dali. Okay, now I want to go to the verse now. I think this verse is nice and short and kind of interesting. And maybe will be helpful. The bait is the clouds, the hook is the moon, fishing in a clear pond. Okay, so you see the reference there that an ancient used a rainbow as a pole, a new moon as a hook, and a piece of cloud for bait.

[70:10]

All right? In clear waters, one can thus pull for the boat of compassions. All right. What's happening? Do I have a different translation? Yeah. Radically. What do you have? I like it with that. The bait is clouds to hook the moon, fishing in the clear harbor. Olden years alone at heart. He hasn't got a fish yet. Yeah, what's similar? I read the commentary or the commentary. This is this is a reference to an ancient Oh Down below an ancient used a rainbow as a pole. Yeah new moon as a hook Okay, got the picture and a rainbow is a pole new moon out there as a hook. Okay and cloud piece of cloud is a bait the cloud and

[71:11]

A new moon. A new moon. A new moon is dark, right? You can put the clouds, put a piece of cloud on the hook. And you want, new moon's good because you can't see it. Fish won't see the hook. Yeah. Hmm? What? You can't catch a fish that way. You can catch a fish that way in the really smooth water. This ancient was able to do it that way. So they're referring to that method. However, he doesn't catch fish this way because the passion is not on smooth water. And as it says in the commentary, when you read this, you may think that Lupu didn't have any disciples. Well, he did. But there's something about what he's doing here that's been referenced for this case of this ancient fishing this way. Now, here's an interesting thing, too. He says, one song leaving the clamor.

[72:16]

Do you have to leave any clamors in quotes? Yes. Okay. So that's the name of a song. The name of the song is an epic poem. It's an epic poem in Chinese history. Yeah, it's a song written by this guy. called Leaving the Clamor, Leaving the Hubbub. So one song, this Leaving the Clamor, coming back on the Milo River, only one sober person. So the person who wrote this poem was this guy who went down to the Milo River and said, I'm the only sober one. I'm the only pure one. And he jumped into the river. and died. How does that relate to our case? George?

[73:18]

The whole verse or just that last part? Any part of the whole verse, but I hope we get to the last part. I think the last part is... The first part seems to be about Lu Pu's method. The first two lines are about Lu Pu's style. The second two lines, I think, are about Yang Song. Right? Maybe. And how so? The second two lines are about Yang Song to be comparing him to Yuan. That's what it is. To say that he's He didn't see, he saw the transmission of the Dharma as something that was not right for him, as something that cannot sit properly upon his shoulders. And he didn't, he wanted to be pure and not be, he didn't want to be defiled by Dharma transmission.

[74:29]

And so with his ambiguous answer, he stepped back just as he wanted to throw himself into the earth. With his ambiguous answer, Kriyanjali said, when he helped, I really don't understand. He was like throwing himself in the river? Yes. Yeah, well, that's one way to see it, isn't it? He's like throwing himself in the river because he wants to be pure. All these other Zen people are into this dharma transmission thing. getting, you know, getting a fiefdom and all that, but then you're in... then you're in fiefdom prison. You gotta be a... you gotta be a baron, all right? It is a kind of prison. All the responsibilities, yes. It does say in the proletariat book, though, that the records of the chaff transmission clearly outsell the wrongs of the successors of the drug lords. Right. So that's exactly said. that he's killed himself in the river.

[75:31]

You can't exactly say that. So, what do you think old Tian Tong wrote that for? Huh? Just a second, I want to hear what that again says. What? What was the motivation in bringing up this story at this particular time? It's kind of ironic, isn't it? This verse or this guy? You think he's being ironic? The verse or the story? No, I was just thinking the verse. We know why he brought the story up. That's obvious. He's praising Yang Song. He's praising Yang Song ironically. Well, I think it's a contrast in a way to... Elaborate the irony, please. As you know, ladies and gentlemen, irony is the principal rhetorical device of Chan. See, now he's being the head monk. Come on, darling. Unpack the irony. Give it a try. This is your chance. I mean, first, this is not your chance.

[76:50]

This is just hard work. This is the scholarly work. Unpack it, and then later you can be a bad boy. That'll be your chance. Well, okay, Yang Tsung didn't, doesn't understand, and again, he really doesn't understand. And in a way, it's like he's being pure. There's one reading that he's being pure. And he's not, to me, it was our translation. He's not accepting the process of gesticulation, of dealing with both food and all of that. So there's that side. But I think that how miserable was this ironic too. I think how miserable was praising Ransom. Well, before we get into... Before you join Martha's school of Jansan getting praise here, let's talk about this irony. What's this irony thing here? Well, there's two kinds of... So... Is he being ironic himself? Or is he actually just, like, what do you call it?

[77:53]

What is he, like, fighting for his life? I don't think when you're fighting for your life, you're being ironic, although you might use irony as a way to do it. Do you mean by Gansong or Tiantong? I propose to you, Tiantong might be ironic. Yeah. I think that might be really true. So, in unpacking irony, in other words, that, in other words, that, what's his name, Yonsang's not really trying to be pure. It sounds like he's trying to be pure and avoid, and avoid this, and avoid playing the game. But another way to understand is he's fighting for his life. He's actually playing the game really well. He's really playing the game well, and he cannot go along with what the teacher's thing is, because if he goes along with the teacher's thing, he won't be doing his job. He has to be independent now and not do what the teacher says.

[78:56]

But he can't do it by not playing the game. He's got to play the exact game the teacher says. He's got to do this host-guest thing in his way. And he has to do it just like the teacher, and different. He has to use the teacher's method, teacher's setup, and then do it differently. Otherwise, it won't bother the teacher at all. The teacher won't think it's miserable, really. So again, if it's really miserable, it really is miserable, and it really does hurt, and that's exactly the way it should be. It really is tough. It really is a struggle. And that... is real harmony and real life. And we look really perplexed, and that's... It's so miserable that you're so... It's really tough.

[80:02]

I thought we were going to finish this case tonight, but we're not. Finally you spoke. A second time. Okay, so Taigan and Andy can do further unpacking of the irony of the equation. Albert can ask this question. The question was really, I'd probably just ask him to unpack the irony. It seems like Qiyuan, is that the name of the poet who drowned himself? Chu. Chu. How do you say Chu, Andy? True. Way to go. He comes across in at least this rendition of his stories as rather a fool. A purist fool? Yes. Yes. It does.

[81:14]

So I wasn't all that perplexed by what you were saying, but I'm still perplexed by why Ian's song... What Tian Tong's purpose is in comparing Yang... in saying that Yang Song is taking that same stance, that pure... One possibility is that he's saying that Yang Song is looking like he's being very pure. Yeah. Like he's trying to avoid doing what his teacher's asking him to do in order to be pure. Well, that's what it is on the face. I mean, on the face of the verse. But if that isn't really what Yan Song is doing, and I agree with you that that's not really what Yan Song is doing, why is Tian Tong mocking him in that way?

[82:21]

He's literally mocking him. Yes. So if he's literally mocking him, then it would be ironic. Very strange people. If he was pretending to mock him, if it looked like he was pretending to mock him, then it wouldn't be ironic, then he would be obviously not mocking him. But he is mocking him, but he's being ironic, maybe. And also, his teacher's being ironic, but irony doesn't have... It's not like irony doesn't have any teeth. When, in case 13... When Linji says, who would have thought that my dharma would be destroyed by a blind ass? He's not... He means, he feels the pain of his dharma being destroyed. His dharma, his shelf has been destroyed. It has been destroyed, really. And this teacher's way has been destroyed too. And it's miserable, it's tough. But it's a compliment to say that. Somehow there's this balance between

[83:24]

The student doing something that the teacher doesn't like, but among all the things that the student can do that the teacher doesn't like, the student is picking exactly the teacher's teaching to not do what he likes. He's not just breaking this rule or that rule. He's taking the teacher's teaching and he's screwing it up. His own way. The way he has to or she has to. And it hurts. It's tough. He's refusing to do what the teacher's asking. But he's working exactly with what the teacher's asking. He's not doing anything. He's not making up his own game. He's working the teacher's medium, the teacher's colors, the teacher's sounds, and he's turning it his own way. And it doesn't work, but it does. And it looks, the way it looks like he's doing it, he's not being too pure in a way. That's the way he seems to be being, but he's being ironic too.

[84:29]

Now, he's not being ironic. The teacher's being ironic. Now, how is that? And is there anything more you want to do? And if there is, do it next week. But you could also, if you want to, start studying Case 42. Start studying it. And if anybody needs a copy of case 42, where is she? Where is she? If anybody needs a copy of case 42, it's in this black folder here. Is that clear? Everything clear now? So go into that world of the struggle between those two guys. And check it out. It's a struggle and it's very warm too. Now what is it that somebody said, and I think it was maybe Suzuki Roshi, but I feel bad saying that because I can't remember exactly what it was.

[85:37]

But anyway, he says something about intimacy is not, you know, all pleasant. There's a struggle in intimacy. Or as it says in case 98, ultimate closeness is almost like enmity. Enmity. Is it enmity? Enmity. Almost like that. It's almost like that here. It's almost like they're fighting. They're very close. And this guy is being very kind. Maybe too kind. So this is the final realm here. of enthiefment or avoidance of enthiefment and freedom and all that stuff. Individual, you know, individual expression and merging and all that stuff. He almost cuts his head off. Yeah. Well, I'm sure. It looked like he did, but it didn't.

[86:44]

Many hours in tension

[86:46]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_81.34