Nice to meet you. We met him and he shared how his disciple Aryadeva, or Kanadeva, down below him here. Oh, thank you. You can come up and look at him if you want to, later. Someday, maybe, he'll be hung on the wall somewhere. So, I thought maybe I would start by answering some questions that I can see tonight. One question was from Peter, and it's from Suzuki Roshi's commentary on Case 73 of the

[01:08]

Blue Cliff Record. And the story in there is about a monk who comes to Matsu after Ma and asks him about, you know, beyond the four propositions and the one hundred negations, what is the meaning of coming from the West? I believe that's the story. Apart from or beyond the four propositions and beyond the hundred negations, please point out the meaning of coming from the West directly for me. And then Suzuki Roshi comments on

[02:21]

this, and his commentary, he says, is based to a great extent on the instruction he received from his teacher, which is our Aeon. So his interpretation of the four propositions are that they're the four negations of the first karaka in the book we're studying. So Suzuki Roshi's interpretation of the four propositions that this monk is talking about going beyond are that there's nothing that arises from itself, nothing that arises from something else, nothing that arises from both, self and something else, and nothing that arises from lack of causes. That's Suzuki Roshi's interpretation.

[03:25]

In the Blue Cliff Record, the interpretation of these four propositions is that it exists, it doesn't exist, it neither exists nor does not exist, it both exists and does not exist, and it neither exists nor does not exist. That's what the Blue Cliff Record interprets those four as. And the Book of Serenity seems to sort of go along with that interpretation, but Kishizawa Aeon Roshi's interpretation, Suzuki Roshi's interpretation, is that it's the first karaka in this work. And Peter's question was, after Suzuki Roshi says, everything that is, does not come from itself, and after that, in parentheses, he wrote, singularity. So Peter's wondering about what Suzuki Roshi meant by, everything

[04:32]

that is, does not come from singularity. Any questions you want to make on that? That's okay? Okay, you can accept that, that's not a problem. Or Peter, everything that is does not come from plurality. That's okay too? Everything that is does not come from existence. Well, it's not what he said, but now the way you're saying it, it makes sense. Everything that is does not come from non-existence. Okay, while we're in the neighborhood, so the story follows, you know, this monk asks, going beyond Nagarjuna's four propositions, the 100 negations, and Suzuki Roshi explains

[05:38]

how you get 100 negations from your edification. This is something which, pardon? Maybe just a sample. It's easy. Here's how you get 100. You take the four, okay? And you multiply them, and you take the four, and then you sort of, take this four. Affirmative, negative. Affirmative, negative. Affirmative, negative. Affirmative and negative. And the negative of negation of both affirmative and negative. So that is those four propositions times those four things. Affirmative, negative. Affirmative and negative. And negation of both affirmative and negative. It's four times the propositions of the 16th. Then you multiply these 16 by past, present, and future,

[06:48]

and you get 48. And then you multiply the 48 by 2. 6, actual, and potential, and you get 96. Together with the original four, so my question is, not you, are the first Zen students on the block to know what the 100 negation sign is. It doesn't say anything, it doesn't say anything. And then the commentaries are just there. So my question is, going beyond that, going beyond all this stuff, what is the meaning of coming from the West? Please show it to me. The story follows. The story has this important character that is Masu. It has Bajang Waihai, the disciple of Bajang Waihai. It has, what is it, Je Tsong Chi Thong. Je Tsong Chi Thong.

[07:48]

So the monk asked me that question. And Master Masu says, I'm tired out today. I can't explain for you. Please go see Je Tsong. The monk asked Je Tsong. Je Tsong said, how come you didn't ask the teacher? The monk said, the teacher told me to come and ask you. Je Tsong said, I have a headache today. I can't explain to you. Go ask Brother Hai. Bajang Waihai. The monk asked Hai. Hai said, when it comes to this, or when it comes this far, after all, I don't understand. The monk went back to Master Ma and related what happened.

[09:04]

Master Ma said, Tsang's head is right. Hai's head is left. And again, in this commentary, when the commentator goes through the story, he says, what does he say? He says, what does he say? Anyway, after the last line, where Masu says, Tsang's head is right. Hai's head is left. The commentator says, I thought it was Hu Hai.

[10:13]

Oh yeah, there it is. I thought it was Hu Bai. But here, it's even Hu Hai. Hu Bai means, here's a Chinese word for happy. Bai means white. So Hu Hai means white happy. Hu Hai means black happy. So there were these two Chinese robbers. They knew each other, but they didn't work together very often. So Hu Hai, black happy, was one day standing by a well with a woman.

[11:14]

And they were looking unhappily into the well. And Mr. White Hat came walking by and said, what's the matter? And Hu Hai, Mr. Black Hat, said, well, this woman has lost some very precious jewels that have fallen down in the well. And she will give half their value to whoever gets them. And Mr. Black, I mean, Mr. White says to Mr. Black, he pulls him aside and says, why don't we go down, why don't we get the jewels and use them to, you know, keep our sights and ditch the chick. And so Mr. Black agrees with Mr. White's idea. And Mr. White takes off his clothes and goes down the well and looks around for the jewels.

[12:17]

But he can't find them. And when he comes back up, his clothes and all his possessions are gone. So is Black Hat and his pal. And then Mr. White says, I thought I was a bad dude. But Black Hat is much more clever than I am. So that was the commentator, this book that's written by this commentator made that comment. So then it looks like he's out here on his incubation for follow-up interpretation. Anyway, that Brother High was Mr. Black, and Brother Tom was Mr. White. In other words, Mr. White is why I was a better robber

[13:18]

than Brother. So this monk, you know, this is an interesting thing for me to see that maybe sometimes, maybe who knows how often, Chinese monks who are somewhat familiar with modern Buddhist teachings, and then they would go to a Zen teacher and try to have the actual point of all directly conveyed. So this is a case like that. And so Master Monk directly conveyed it by saying, you know, I'm tired, I can't talk to you, go talk to him. And the monk probably meant to go talk to the other guy. But he didn't mean it. I'm saying he didn't mean that, right? But I'm not saying he didn't mean something else.

[14:21]

So right there. That's like Jeremy's question. Did they ask me if I mean something by what I'm saying? To be able to talk, you know, about meaning something is the meaning of the ancestor coming from the West. So he said, I'm tired, I can't explain to you, go see him. That's, there it is. There's the meaning of the ancestor. There's the ancestor, you know. You want to know the meaning of what, you go up to the ancestor and you say, what's the meaning of the ancestor? The ancestor, you know, talks without referring to anything. And the monk then thinks he's referring to something and goes off to what he was talking about, to what he was referring to. It was already shown.

[15:23]

Now the two disciples get a chance. This one says, you know, I got a headache, go see my doctor. And then the next one says, well, you know. Then Master Monk says this thing about one being white and one being black. Now this is a real problem. So it just happened, for instance, that this is the next story to be told, and putting them in Zazen. We'll be hearing more about this. There's another story which I like in a commentary. Another time Master Ma was up above with these two guys,

[16:25]

Brother Hai and Brother Zang, but also he was out with Brother Chuan, and Nan Chuan. So these are his three of his most notable students, Brother Hai, Nan Chuan, and Brother Zang. [...] Master Ma says to these guys, he says, what should one do at this very moment? And Brother Hai, by John Wai Hai, said, by the way, Wai Hai means, Wai Hai means the ocean in your, you know,

[17:29]

like in your robes here, this place, this place in here, in your robes, in your Chinese clothes, it's called, it's called Wai, this is the Wai, and Hai is ocean. So his name is, he had the ocean in his pockets right in here. And Jin Zang means treasure, and Nan Chuan means, Chuan is spring or source. So by John says, so again Master Ma says, what should we do at this very moment? And by John says, just write for cultivating practice. And Jin Zang says, just write for making offerings. And Nan Chuan, does this Chinese gesture of shaking off his sleeve, which is kind of a way to, you know,

[18:31]

to leave, kind of like, you'll see that in a lot of stories. And he shook off his sleeve, his sleeves like that, and left. After he left, Master Ma says, the scriptures go into the treasury, the Tsang, storehouse. The meditation goes into the ocean. Only Nan Chuan alone transcends both things, the scriptures and the meditation. And the commentator challenges you again by saying, even here, black and white, should be clearly distinguished. So I have some questions here, and

[19:38]

in a way they're real hard questions, and in some ways kind of like, maybe too much to try to, you know, really deal with in a situation like this. But one of them I dealt with last time because I felt like it was quite apropos, and that is, is there anything beyond the conventional and ultimate reality? And I talked about that. But my question is, how does emptiness relate to human values of judgment? So, any... Do you want to talk about that? It was a question in our group too. Same question? Pretty close. How does moral behavior come out of emptiness? Something like that. Moral behavior. Well, so I was just talking about that today,

[20:48]

I was writing about that today, that I guess in one sense there are there are issues of good and bad, right? Good and bad, or maybe right and wrong. I mean, generally speaking, I think the Buddha also said that that issues of good and bad are usually dealt with by, you know, the heading of worldly convention. There are some conventions to determine good and bad. Or the determination of good and bad depends on something. And good and... So, since it depends on something, if you see that it depends on something, it definitely co-arises, so it is empty. It is empty of inherent existence.

[21:52]

So, any kind of moral judgment that depends on any kind of criteria or reasoning lacks inherent existence. But, if it follows according to conventional principles, and by those principles is commonly held in some context, then in that context, it is the conventional, the worldly conventional truth, from that ethical point. So it has, then, some conventional truth, or a conventional truth. But, it does not have inherent truth. It does not have inherent truth. Give him the precepts.

[22:59]

First, I'm going to tell him, see if he missed any introductions that he wants, and after he hears this. So, but, then, either you might want some moral principles that apply to all situations, some moral idea which would apply to any situation. And, I don't know that the Buddha ever recommended that kind of program. And, if you do have a principle that applies in all situations, if anybody did have that thing, well, actually, people have had that thing. I just say some people have had principles that apply to all situations. And then I think you can see, if you look at the history of the world, what has happened when people had those principles.

[24:04]

Can you give any examples where anybody had universal moral principles, and what happened? The Crusades. The Crusades. What was the moral principle? What was the moral principle? What was the universal moral principle? Well, I don't know how to describe it as a moral principle, specifically, more a religious principle. And, I don't know if I need to elaborate. It's pretty clear. But, often religious principles are helpful. What was the moral principle? Moral efficacy. Did Nazi Germany have a moral principle? They did, right? They did, right? They had, you know, not a very intelligently worked out one, but it was kind of like, the Jews are responsible for certain things, and, you know, the gypsies and so on. Their moral principle was, it's, you know, I just want to share with you that, somebody told me a movie which I've never seen,

[25:06]

it was a movie about the architectural plans of the Third Reich. Hitler was an amateur architect, and he did a lot of designing of buildings for the Third Reich. And he even did, he and his friends even did drawings of what these buildings would look like in the ruins. They drew them, and then they drew them what they would look like when they fell apart. So, a thousand years later, how would they look? And, they were very concerned with these, you know, beautiful, [...] beautiful things. They wanted things to be beautiful. They wanted things to be pristine and white and Nordic, Aryan, German. Right? Blonde, tall, eugenically bred, humans, animals, plants, mountains, buildings. Very concerned with beauty and cleanliness,

[26:07]

and anything that would interfere with that was considered to be undesirable. And this was a universal principle, pretty much, which was applied, which they attempted to apply. Anyway, there are other cases too, maybe, where I'm thinking of maybe not on a big scale like that, but for individuals, there are stories, you know, like that movie, Heart of Killing, you know, that's one. You've seen that? The Japanese samurai had a code called the Bushido, the way of the Bushi, the way of the warrior. And, when they achieved peace in Japan, the story goes, and it's true, that there was no jobs for the warriors, there was no wars, so they had a huge warrior class, like 10% of the population, the male population, were warriors, which is like 10 times as high as it was in Europe. And they were undeployed, a lot of them, because there was no wars.

[27:08]

And they had weapons still, but they weren't fighting with each other, and they had disarmed the rest of the country, so they needed work. And they tried to get jobs teaching, because they were educated people, a lot of them were without work, so it was dishonorable to be starving to death and not be able to take care of your family, so some of them would go to some high official samurai and offer to commit suicide, asking them to second him, and then get involved, and get disemboweled, disembowel himself, and then get cut off in an honorable way and die. But some people did, according to this historical truth, that they would go to these houses and offer to commit suicide in an unemployed state, and then some of them might get paid and get a job. But the rule

[28:18]

was you shouldn't do that, and if you did that they would call you out and ask you to go ahead and commit suicide. So this one guy did that, this family was starving to death, he went and offered to do this, and they called him on it, and they said go ahead and do it then. And the guy realized that they were actually letting him do it, so he said well he's going and said why don't you come and do it, and they wouldn't let him do it. And when they found out that he was actually faking it, they didn't even give him a regular sword, they didn't bend his sword. Because, you know, he broke the rules, which you apply in all situations. That's the story, but people do stuff like that, and then, just being honest, sometimes, they have rules which they almost think they apply

[29:18]

to everybody or something like that, and there's a tension in that. Which situations do these things apply to? So then the question is, well, where do others in life real moral principles that aren't just conventionally determined? Is that all there is to morality, just some agreement between us? Nietzsche talks about two kinds of morality. One is the morality of the overlords or the aristocrats, and that's

[30:20]

one kind of thing, and then there's the morality of the slaves. there's those two kinds of morality, and they're somewhat different. Well, both are conventional realms, though. In the conventional realm of the aristocrats, they tend to make their moral codes for each other. The codes could apply to each other, between each other, and there's not much concern in those laws, those moral principles, for like protecting each other from harm. That's not the main issue. Whereas the morality set up by slaves seems like one of the main issues is to protect beings. So Nietzsche's kind of asking this, how do you bring these two together? To

[31:23]

bring the morality of self-protection together with the morality of protection. The morality of self-protection together with the morality that's not considered self-protection. To have a morality about protecting others. So what does emptiness have to do with the Buddhist precepts? It makes them possible. Emptiness is just as much as morality. I just want to ask you what you said about the capacity of protection

[32:23]

of beings. Do you think that emptiness versus protection makes the precepts because the precepts are becoming this universal world? Yeah, right. She's talking about, she said that emptiness protects the precepts, not so much with the precepts. Well, Stuart said that emptiness makes the precepts possible. Emptiness also makes not the precepts possible, too. But Carrie said that emptiness protects the precepts from becoming too rigid, from becoming the universal principle for a substantial reality. Because it more allows, it allows them to appear, and it allows them not to

[33:23]

appear. But she said the unsurpassable protection of emptiness, and that refers actually to an expression that the unsurpassable protection of emptiness is to see bewilderment and confusion as the four bodies of fear. The protection of emptiness is to be able to see because of emptiness, bewilderment lacks inherent existence. So can you apply the fact that bewilderment and confusion lack inherent existence? But bewilderment of course, confusion also relates to any greed, hate, and all kinds of other things. But just

[34:23]

basically the fundamental bewilderment is the four bodies of Buddha. So can you see the bewilderment as the four bodies of Buddha? Can I be protected from the bewilderment by emptiness? But it isn't exactly that. It isn't exactly that you just say, okay, my bewilderment is the four bodies of Buddha, fine, I'm being protected by emptiness, great. It is the middle one. As your bewilderment manifests, you

[35:25]

see it depending on the co-arising. So you see it having an appearance or a conventional existence for you. it as empty simultaneously. This is the which body is that? This is the truth body, this is the empty truth body. But the empty truth body is not there, there's not there. The

[36:26]

way it appears, the way it appears, the way your bewilderment is appearing, the particular kind of bewilderment you have, that is the unique and specific transformation of the body of Buddha. The fact that these two are going on, the fact that these two are working together, that dynamic which is hard to face, that dynamic of something happening and being empty and the thing is the unique manifestation of Buddha form, the fact that those two working together like that is the orgasmic body of Buddha, it is the bliss body of Buddha, it is the reward for

[37:26]

meditation on what's happening to such an extent that without losing track of it, staying with it all the way, you realize it's empty, and when you realize it's empty, you still don't lose track of it and realize it's the manifestation of Buddha. That dynamic is staying with that dynamic rather than one or the other. You see that these three are totally interpenetrating each other. It's called the body of the own being of Buddha. to see bewilderment and confusion, to see hatred and disgust and remorse and fear and anxiety and rage and pride and heat and cold and everything, basically

[38:29]

to see bewilderment and confusion that way, in these ways, to be able to see this. That's called the imperceptible protection of emptiness. The same would apply to the precepts and bewilderment by the precepts. Now one of the questions here is where does compassion manifest, live, in the middle way triangle? Well, first of all, the way in the triangle, first of all, the way it lives is that in order to, the key point, to tune into the triangle, like

[39:30]

a tetrahedron. know what I mean? It's got a base, a triangular base, say, and then it's got the middle way up the top. Can you follow that? A pyramid, yeah, a pyramid, but some pyramids have five sides, but a tetrahedron has four. You know, a tetrahedron is a pyramid that has a triangular base, and it has four triangular sides. Okay? The base of the three sides. Pardon? The base of three sides makes four. Yeah, the base of three sides, right, and all the sides involve a triangular So tetrahedron is the most stable three-dimensional solid. But anyway, you can picture, if you

[40:32]

want to, you've got this triangular base of a pentachorizing conventionality and emptiness and up above the middle way, way is connected by these lines with each one of those things, okay? So you've got this tetrahedron actually. So where's compassion? In some ways, compassion is the, well, compassion is upright sitting. Okay? First of all, the way the door, the door to this triangle is usually not to the middle way, because the middle way is like, it's hard to find the middle way, very hard, but if you have any experience, and you're compassionate with yourself about that experience, about the bewilderment, compassion about bewilderment is that you just listen to the bewilderment. You don't you don't try to fix the bewilderment, you don't try to inject the bewilderment, you don't try to talk it out of being a bewilderment,

[41:32]

you don't try to promote it, but you just listen to it, and you listen to it, and you listen to it, and listen to it. By upright sitting, compassion is sitting upright, you settle into your belonging and settle into whatever your experience is. That's compassion. Compassion takes you into your body, into your passion, into your belonging. And when compassion is sufficient, you're stably situated in your momentary experience. You're having your experiences. Then if you have your experiences then, your meditative experiences, you can watch them and see that they're dependent on you. Again, if they don't depend on you then you've got something that inherently exists and you've got agreement. And also you're going to be upset with that. All kinds of turbulence can happen around this fixed independent entity. So that allows you

[42:37]

to experience your head. You can be compassionate with yourself about that. There's also bewilderment there. If you can see that bewilderment has conditions, then the bewilderment is starting to deconstruct, the bewilderment is starting to unfold and show you how dependent co-arises. As you start to see your confusion in its dependent quality, it starts to empty out. Anyway, as you enter through dependent co-arising, compassion helps you enter through the dependent co-arising corner of this petri dish. Once you're in there, the first place you'd probably flash is over to emptiness. Or maybe not. You might go flash over to the conventionality and use the conventionality to help you understand more deeply the dependent co-arising of your experience. You might use conventionality to aid your analysis of how you use words to

[43:42]

make your story, to make your experience. So you might go back and forth between teaching the conventionality of dependent co-arising. So also you realize the dependent co-arising of the thing, the thing that the dependent co-arising is in front of you, but also the dependent co-arising itself is in front of you. So then you start to fill in the base. And the more you go around the base, gradually this thing in the middle of your triangular circuitry starts to loom up. It's always there, and you hear about it occasionally. And also it doesn't say it's from one of the corners, and it doesn't say it's from none of the corners. It just says actually it is from some of the corners, but you don't know which one they are. So it's indeterminate, and this whole thing starts to build up. So that's how I would say compassion works, or lives. And it keeps living by basically

[44:45]

pumping stuff in through the dependent co-arising corner, triangle. Compassion doesn't really pump in emptiness. And again the question is, where do the precepts stand in the triangle, and what should they be? Where are the precepts? All three of the points of the base?

[45:47]

Yeah, they're all three points of the base actually, and they're also in the middle way. The precepts are the whole tetrahedron. Those are three kinds of precepts. Because the precepts dependent co-arise by conventionality, therefore they're empty. But also, that relationship between how the precepts are empty, dependent co-arising conventionally, that's the middle way. So the precepts are the whole tetrahedron. But it's very difficult, yes very difficult to keep it balanced, to keep these four kinds of middle way, keep them all going, so that the middle way is not getting locked off, or sinking down, or moving over to one side or the other. It's like the middle way could tip off and be along one line over one pole. If you keep the middle way right in the middle, you have to learn to harmonize these different

[46:53]

aspects of the middle way. Which is very hard, very hard. Because part of what this is about is, because of the emptiness, you really can have something happen. Overrun, overrun. That's the way they interpret these four compositions in the Book of Serenity. They say that this is slandering the situation by evaluation. That it doesn't exist is slandered by underestimation. So it's very hard to like, have it be up there, let it appear, and not cling to it. Either way it's not happening, they're not clinging to it. To have it appear in its emptiness and not cling to it, and not even cling to it being empty, you let it keep appearing, it's very hard to balance that. And then to remember that this whole thing is just talk. When you hear that again, when you hear that it's

[47:58]

just talk, you feel like, well I think I'll be kind of co-writing myself out of this situation. But again like the Book of Records says, I can't have it there because nothing is there. Why is that volume on? Because that's all we need. No, that's not all we need. We need more than that. We need volume. We need volume too. This is a nice way, nice way. I thought maybe tonight wasn't a good night so fast because I thought you'd be sleeping. We're used to it. I'll stop pretty soon because many of us are sleepy. Although it's not the usual people. In explaining Dharma there is neither explanation nor teaching.

[49:06]

In listening to Dharma there is neither hearing nor attainment. Since explanation neither explains nor teaches, how can it compare to not explaining? Since listening neither hears nor attains, how can it compare to not listening? Still, not explaining and not listening still amounts to something. Still, not explaining and not listening still amounts to something. Try to back out of it. Try to back away from the conventional thing. You're still on a dependent co-arism. Now you're on a dependent co-arism from a negative version of conventionality. Now you're trying to turn language inside out and avoid it. I have no idea, but still, basically, same rule. You know, on what I've been called to an experiential level, it seems to me that that dynamic of what we're talking about,

[50:08]

the sort of experiential level, I'm trying to get a sense of why it's called radiance. Because there's this... It seems as though if you can't... You know, if you're in an eteric existence and yet you still have to pay attention to everything, it sort of... It sort of unpeels all of the way you would see something. And so the radiance is here that this... The feeling of it to me is that it sort of permeates, actually feeling on a sort of cellular level, so that I can't stay in one place. Something like that, I can't hold anything. And so it's just very... I don't know. I just get the sense of why the word is here.

[51:11]

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And it has a lot of cooperation and a lot of conflict. And I'm changing... I'm turning... I'm turning in one direction... I'm turning... I'm turning... I'm turning that way... I'm turning the other way... It's just like, you know... A lot of radiation... Blinding to your regular eyes. Mm-hmm.

[52:13]

That must be why it's so hard to explain. I can't hear anything. I don't know. Yeah, it makes sense. Sorry. Yeah, or one way to look back at the story can just be to say, what's shown in the rest is the meaning of the ancestors coming from the West. The meaning of the ancestors coming from the West is... Whatever it does. Okay, that story... And it sounds like nonsense, but to me it seems perfectly reasonable. I think he was tired. I think he was tired and wanted somebody else to talk to him. That's all. And that... And he also was using bodhisattva. And he was doing exactly what the guy asked. He was showing him directly. Not pointing... Not telling him about anything.

[53:18]

He was directly showing him the reason why Yama came from the West was so that there would be a Matsu there. And be the Matsu he was that day. Which was Matsu retired and didn't want to talk anymore. So he directly answered the question without explaining also without trying to avoid explaining. He wasn't backing away from his responsibility. The guy had a perfectly reasonable request. He just wanted to know, actually, what is it actually about? Matsu wasn't saying, well, it's about me. He was saying, I'm tired. He wasn't explaining it with him. He was just being himself. Again, like that story of Nanchuan, right? The disciple who fell asleep. A monk came by Nanchuan one time and he was out cutting grass. And the monk said, which way to Nanchuan? And Nanchuan said,

[54:20]

this knife, this sickle, will cost 30 cents. The monk said, I didn't ask about the sickle. I said, I want to know which way to Nanchuan. And Nanchuan said, shut up. Okay? Not explaining. Not backing away from explaining either. Just, that's where he was at. He didn't go, he said, just a second, go get the sickle. And the monk said, I got a sickle. It just happened to be in his hand. It just came into his hand. Happened to be where it was at. He said, black and white. He said, black and white. What does that mean? I mean, it comes from the book, doesn't it?

[55:36]

Yeah. How come you're interested in that? It's in the book. It's a punchline. I don't know why I write it. I think the punchline is that it was used. So what's the rest of it? What's the rest of why I bother writing the rest of the book? I don't know. Nobody laughs at a punchline without a joke. Oh, they do? What do you think? Do you think there's something like that?

[56:38]

Maybe. He's expressing himself. I don't think he's expressing himself here. I think he's expressing himself at the beginning. At the beginning, he's being honest. It's all there. I don't know if anybody has tried to to trick people by trying to black and white things. What do you mean, trick people? Well, I don't know. What do you mean, Mosse trick people? Maybe he's trying to get people to think that there's black and white representation. Do you think Mosse was trying to get people to think that black and white represent something? Do you think that's what he's doing? Do you think that's what he's doing? I don't know. Do you think Mosse was trying to get people to do that? Oh, no.

[57:42]

Basically, do you think Mosse was trying to trick people into thinking realistically? Do you think that's what he's doing? I wouldn't put it like that. No, I don't. Well, I'm not, you know, I'm not going to make any kind of inherent reality about this trick. My understanding is that photoshoppers do not go around putting on these shows for people doing something to cause effects or something. That's not what they're about. They don't try to get people to think realistically. They don't try to do that. But also, generally speaking, unless it's really helpful, photoshoppers don't try to stop people from thinking realistically either. But people do think realistically. Now, people do think black and white are different and one's better than the other, okay? Even if the situation trickles that way. That's a better story for the pop.

[58:52]

The one crook said, he's more crooked than I am. Okay? And, you know, so some people think, well, photoshoppers probably would stop telling stories like that. They say, you shouldn't tell a story like that because that makes people think, you know, good and bad, better and worse, you know, so you should just not talk like that. But I didn't see him not talk like that. He was right there. He didn't go around, you know, criticizing people and stuff like that, but he really didn't do much of that at all. But he didn't like talk in such a way that you couldn't think realistically when you were in his presence. But he also didn't, I didn't see him trying to get people to think realistically. And I see no evidence of Benji J trying to get people to think realistically. They want people to think realistically, but generally speaking,

[59:52]

they don't, like, do something so that they will seem to think realistically. They don't do that. I haven't seen a sign that Buddhist teachers try to do something so that we'll see what you're doing wrong. It doesn't work very well, because if they're trying to do that, it just distracts you. It turns out that if a person exists himself, we will go right ahead and think dualistically. But it's nice for a person to be acting non-dualistically and for us to project dualism on, that's really good for us. But actually, for somebody not to be tricking us, and for us to think that they're tricking us, this is a more helpful situation. That's what they're doing, they're not trying to trick you, they're trying to wake you up. But not by trying to get you to have a problem first, so that you can say to them, here, you've already got the problem. Also, he's not going to, you know,

[60:53]

he's not going to avoid talking in such a way that you can project any dualism on him. Because if he did that, again, that's what it says right here. To try to not explain, or not listen, or whatever, that's just something too. It's just that, that's like that hard dynamic you just said, you know, explain, explain, as not explaining, the Buddha explains. Therefore, the Buddha explains. It's not that the Buddha goes around not explaining. It's not that we go around saying, this is not Zen center, the meaning of this is not Zen center, because if you say not Zen center, people say not, and not Zen center, it just gets weird. So we don't like try to make this so that people can't operate realistically. We just basically try to be compassionate with what's happening. And that's just, he was. The guy asked him, told him how he, he just did this thing called meaning of the coming from the West. That was what he did. That's what he did all day long.

[61:54]

Now, if somebody comes up and asks him, you know, where's the bathroom? He doesn't say, he doesn't say I have a headache or something like that. He says, it's over that way. You know, points toward the bathroom. Unless he forgot where it was, he points the wrong direction. You know, Suzuki Roshi sometimes walks in the closet by mistake. And his wife would say, you're a Zen master, how come you walk in the closet? You know, can't you pay attention to where the bathroom is? And he would say, well, you know, I'm really concentrating on important issues, you know. In other words, he was just kind of like, he's just himself, you know. He wasn't like, kind of like, okay, I shouldn't be a Zen master, because I'm a Zen master. Actually, I'm a Zen master, that's why she shouldn't be criticizing me. You know, for me, I'm a Zen master, you know, so me going in the toilet, the bathroom, the closet to take a pee, it's not a problem.

[62:56]

You know, it's a common sense. I have a good excuse for everything I do. In other words, I'm not trying to be a real Zen master, you know, Zen master. I'll be on a Zen master trip, because that's where I'm at, you know. Sixteen, seventeen years old, I can play that game for a few years before I can go, okay. George Bush, I love George Bush, you know, they put a lot of pressure on him to eat broccoli. You know, California broccoli, people were pressuring him. His wife was on their side, you know, doing all these special, special things. You know, something delicious, you know, treats with broccoli, they had all these great cooks from all over the world doing broccoli things, you know. And the guy just stood out there, you know, on the lawn with his dog and he said, look, I'm 65 years old, President of the United States, I don't like broccoli, I don't like to eat it. And you know,

[64:03]

I thought, that's right, you know. It's not that cool, but that's where he was at. He was really, I felt, authentic about that. I don't know if there are other comments, but at that moment, I really thought, hey George, you can do that. You want the possible protection of intimacy, you can be that way. And you people can be that way too, that's nothing. Yeah. I'm sure also in one of these Koan stories, there's a, where the, one of the people in the story will say, or in the commentary will say, it's the, it's robbing the robber. And in this story, it's the robber robbing the robber, rather than a person, you know, a regular person robbing the robber. And that, it usually seems to be that the way that works is that in this case, it's the robber robbing the robber.

[65:03]

I don't think that either of them is right. I don't think that the, the guy, the white guy, the white cat, the white head, and the black head were actually being, they were being judged between the two. One had the right answer and one didn't. It was like the, it was more like the robber robbing the robber. Just me. Because, I don't know if it's, it seemed like that was the direction of this question. Yeah, thank you. Yes, I completely, I completely agree in a totally different way. More seriously, I wanted to suggest that, that

[66:04]

Matzah, perhaps by, by describing his two students in that way was pointing out the difference in appearance and trivializing it. I mean, they're two completely different people and what he has to say to characterize their differences, this one has a white head and this one has black head, yes, black hair. And, and it's sort of reducing the appearance of difference to nothing more than a kind of surface appearance of difference. I think that, I think that that is a sort of a further, a further teaching about emptiness and a further, yeah, further teaching about, about emptiness and also I think that it, it points out the successful way that both of these, of his students

[67:06]

responded to the, to the inquiry. That they, that they both, although they said and did different things, that they both very successfully responded to the, to the inquiring monk. I, I think much has been made that, that they were just kind of brushing him off, but actually his question was what is the meaning of coming from the West and, and coming from the West is a reference usually to Bodhidharma. What, why did Bodhidharma come? What did he transmit? And the first student says, why don't you ask the teacher? And, and this is a, I think that this points to a transmission between teacher and student. There's one reason why Bodhidharma came from the West or one of the things that is part of the meaning of coming from the West. Ask the teacher.

[68:07]

That is, meet with the teacher. And, another important lesson of Bodhidharma coming from the West is I don't know. Which, which was the other student's answer. So both of them each in his own way and completely differently responded and gave a full response to the inquiring monk. And the teacher? The teacher thought that, that the second one was better but then maybe he didn't think that. But maybe he said that or maybe he didn't say that. He said, maybe they look different and maybe this is, what do you make of them? You know, you can say one head is black and one head is white and where does that get you? Well, the hard thing, again the hard thing is actually being in this room.

[69:08]

All the way. Not, not, not a little, not you know, not too much but just being in a room. At the place you're at. In your seat, in your body with the thoughts that are going through your head. That's the hard thing. The start. That's the first part. And then, and then, and then there's various moments throughout the night where it's hard. It's hard when certain people are talking and it's harder when other people are talking. It's harder when other people are talking. It's harder and harder and harder to be in that position. And so, and Gary hasn't been ringing the bell very often, to give you a chance to realize that that's really what this class is about. First of all, is to be you. In your place. Like me, being me

[70:17]

when certain people are talking to me. I've got to be over here listening to them. That's my job. And other times it's your job, my job, talking to me, listening to me, being nearby listening to me. It's very hard to actually take up the seat. Then, feel the pain of it. And then stay present with the pain of it. And like, you know, look at the pain. What's it about? And just stay with it until it starts to unfold. Not just the rate of pain, just ordinary physical pain, mental pain, but pain while somebody's talking to you. It's really hard. And then you get into this experiential thing I'm going to be talking about gradually. Things start to go really...

[71:20]

It's actually hard, unwrapping more of it. And that can be hard too. It can be scary. But that's basically it. Seems like that's kind of like... I want to make sure everybody's doing their part. Just a short comment on what you said there. I think, from this practice period, having, you know, tried to do what you say, that I think it's more difficult to avoid it than actually to go into it. I mean, to keep avoiding the suffering or keep, you know, avoiding the anxiety or whatever. I think, even though it is difficult, at a certain, at some, maybe not a certain point, but... I would say differently. Assuming I agree with you. And I would say differently. But I would say that it's difficult

[72:22]

to, you know, it's difficult to enter in, take your place, stay present, and watch the program. It's difficult. And I would say the other way is more difficult. What I would say is, the other way is more painful. More painful. And more unhealthy. And more sick. Not more sick. It's sick. This way is healthy. This direction is healthy but difficult. This way is habitual and in some ways easy to go this way. Just lay back and you roll that way by habit. But it's extremely painful and sick. It's the way of sickness and not just sickness for you, but you and you might even bring some other people with you. Not necessarily. You might bring them with you. You've got to be careful. This way, though, is more challenging. This way is not challenging. It's sick. So in that way, you're calling that more difficult. I would call it more painful

[73:24]

and more horrible. This way is not so horrible. It's like there are horrors here, but that's not the horror part. Just facing the horrors is hard. I think we're having trouble facing the horrors. And so I appreciate that you have that you're that you face the horror of this kind of material. This is definitely horrific material. It has horrific potential. And you've done a pretty good job and I'm also I've done a pretty good job of watching some of you not do a very good job. I'm being patient with those of you who are not facing the horrors. For those of you who are facing the horror of it, I'm in awe of you and encouraged by you. And other ones, I'm being patient with. For those of you

[74:26]

who have not yet faced how terrible this situation is. And the devastation it offers to your crew. But I'd like to I'd like to stop a little early today so that I can call the lady and see how she's doing. Now, I don't usually do this, but I want to ask, you know, tomorrow is another day. You look like you need about three, four weeks off. Sounds good. So, you know, there's a Dharma event scheduled for tomorrow and would you like to, you know, I don't know, are you up for another class? You don't look like it. You want a break? No, we're fine. How many people don't want a class tomorrow?

[75:26]

Raise your hand. I'd like to have a group meeting. We haven't really, we didn't meet the whole, for one month until this week. Oh, you were away? You were away. Oh, no. Oh, you went to your group meeting, right? This last one? Yes, but we didn't meet for a month before that. Okay, so how many people would like a group meeting tomorrow? Okay. So that's six people. Okay, well, would it be okay if those six people had a meeting? Is that okay? Is that alright? Would you feel isolated by doing that? Would there be a class? There would be a class and then six people would have, you would feel isolated. Would they have a meeting during the class? Yes, I meant during the class. But in the same room? Actually, they could have a meeting. They could have a meeting we could watch. I'd be happy to do that.

[76:27]

That's called, that's called, you know, fishbowl. It's very interesting. We could watch them and see what they're talking about. I'd be happy to do that. Anyway, if anybody, if you have, if those people want to have a, a thing, there's only six of you who raised your hand, so you're welcome to do that. Looks like the other people wanted it. Well, thanks for your response. The true merit of Mel's way beneath his heart

[77:19]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ