We could just try to approach this thing head on, which might be fun, but also might be just silly. Or we could do something a little bit more traditional and first go through it, approach it sort of from this world and study it from this sort of this world, this conventional world for a while. and then try to go to the other world. Or we could just try to enter it directly through this world as the other world. You like that word? That's a good one. OK, go ahead. We're there. Two reasons. In a way I feel like it would be better to have a kind of initiation period.

[01:09]

of dealing with this story in some sense on a conventional level first, although it's really going to be kind of boring maybe for some of you, and for others of you it might be maybe a little bit, I don't know, you might have a little trouble with it, but I think it's kind of a good initiation. If we jump right into it, without this kind of background, might be a little bit too heady. So I guess I'd recommend that we approach this story in a kind of conventional world first, if that's OK with you. So it would take us about three weeks to do this case. one week to do it sort of the conventional way, and that might even take more than one week, one week to see how it's also simultaneously happening on another level, and then maybe a final week to actually see how to practice with this story.

[02:31]

Is that okay, that approach? Yeah. Okay. This story is particularly that way, that you have these two levels going on simultaneously, and there is this basic logic of the conventional world is A is A, A equals A, right? A is A and A is not B. This is an conventional world, right? This is what's called mundane truth. Can you read that?

[03:33]

Is that clear? Can people read that? And then There's another logic, which is a logic of liberation from the world of this conventional world. This world, however, for unenlightened people, this world is misery. This particular logic goes along with misery. If you have any self-clinging and you follow this logic, you're not gonna be happy. There's this other logic which you try to learn, which is A equals A, or A is A, implies or therefore A is not A. This is not in contradiction to that. because it says A is A, just like that does, but there's an implication of A is A, which is that A is not A. And then, finally, therefore, again, we say A is A. This is the three stages, where sometimes we say mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers,

[05:03]

And because of the fact that mountains are mountains, mountains are not mountains. And then later, mountains are mountains again, or rivers are rivers again. Okay? This is a sequence. Any questions about that? Where did that originate? Well, it originated with Shakyamuni Buddha. This is the logic of dependent co-arising. His teaching was about dependent co-arising. This is the logic of dependent co-arising. He saw that all things arise co-dependently with all things. Okay? That's what he thought. That was the content of his enlightenment. And since all things arise co-dependently, all things are equally radiant and true.

[06:05]

So he saw that all things were the buddhi nature, because all things. There's nobody and no thing that doesn't arise by dependent co-arising. The most enlightened person, the most unhappy person, the kindest person, the cruelest person, they all arise co-dependently. They all have the same basic nature, namely they arise co-dependently. And because they arise co-dependently, they lack inherent existence. So A is A includes that A arises co-dependently. That's how A gets to be A. That's how A is exactly A and can never be anything but A. But because A arises co-dependently, A is not A. There's no such thing as A. That's what Buddha saw. This is the logic of what he saw. And then finally, because A is not A and you're liberated from A, no problem with A being A. So come right back in the world and be again with codependently arisen things.

[07:13]

And you don't have to even remember or anything that they're not A. Because they're not. You're completely certain of that, so because you're certain of it, you don't have to remember it. However, because you're completely certain of it, you completely live in the world with no reservations, and you're completely happy with that. So that's why it's the same as the beginning, except you're not trying to get out of it anymore. So this story, this koan, the other koan, they're like this too, but this one particularly is nice to look at it at this level first. Because it holds up on this level and then switch to this level and then see how these two coexist and how they must coexist. Yes? I missed when you said A equals A.

[08:16]

Because the first one, the second one, you said A is not A because they arise codependently. Yes. When A equals A, the first time, mountains and mountains, what did you say that was? That's also because it arises codependently. Oh, I see. But A equals A, and also A equals A. You can tell, the reason why you can tell A equals A is because A derives its codependency. By looking at the things that make A A, all the things that contribute to A being A, you can tell that A actually equals A. And that's the way, ordinarily in the world, how can you tell that A equals A? How can you tell that grace equals grace? By looking at what causes grace, you can identify grace as what causes grace. By dependent co-arising, that's how you figure out this is her. Right? That's how you can check it out to make sure grace is grace. But by the very fact that you find grace by these things, that you identify her by these things by which you identify her, because she's due to these causes and these characteristics,

[09:30]

Obviously there's nothing inherently there because she depends on other things. Matter of fact, she depends entirely on other things and there's nothing to her besides other things. Absolutely nothing there that's called grace. It's only a collection of things that aren't grace. And the sum total of the things that aren't grace are not grace. So because of the very fact that a thing is what itself is precisely why a thing isn't itself. So the basic practice is, if you completely get into the fact of things being themselves, you are relieved of them being themselves. Liberation comes by completely accepting things as they are. And the reason why you would be willing to do a practice of accepting things as they are would partly be because you're told about this logic here. You want to be free of something, Let it be just like it is.

[10:34]

If you won't let things be like they are, then you'll always be in bondage to them. Because the reason why you won't let them be like they are is because of what you think they are, and that you don't want it to be that way. In other words, you believe only that the thing is equal to itself, and therefore you don't want to have all that much to do with it. Or maybe you want to have more to do with it than there is to have to do with it. Anyway, you don't settle with it. You either underestimate it or overestimate it. In this language of all these things that arise together to make grace, and in each one of those things you say the same thing about, where does this all end? That's enough. Just once is enough. Once is enough. And that not only are each of us due to things causing us, but the things that cause us

[11:38]

themselves don't have inherent existence. But it is true that things which lack inherent existence can cause other things which lack inherent existence to appear. That's the expression, a stone woman gives birth to a child in night. A stone woman, a barren woman, barren causes give rise to the appearance of a child at night. It's still a non-existent thing. A non-existent, a bunch of non-existent things can come together to cause the appearance of a non-existent thing. Non-existent things are constantly appearing. Anyway, before we spend all the time on that, we want to go to the story. Okay? Okay. And this is a story about Jiao Jiao.

[12:44]

A monk asked him, Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Actually, it doesn't say does, I don't think. I think it just says da. Have. Buddha nature. Or. Have or not have.

[13:48]

It's more like that. Dog, have, put in nature, or not have. And this is a Chinese character for have. This is a Chinese character for not have. So the Chinese question is built playing with these two Chinese characters, which mean have or not have. They also could mean yes. and no, and they can also mean exist and not exist. Okay? Any questions? So this is the monk's question, is in regular colloquial Chinese of the Tang Dynasty.

[14:52]

It's a question that a person would ask in daily speech. I mean, I think as far as I know, an ordinary person might ask the question this way. and a Buddhist monk might also ask this question this way, but a philosopher might also ask exactly the same question. Before Zen Buddhism, I've heard anyway, that what was written in Chinese books was not ever spoken.

[15:56]

That what was in Chinese books was literary and not what people spoke. You didn't find colloquial language written in books. Just like Sanskrit is not the way people talked in India. The Buddha's teaching has been written down finally in Sanskrit, but he did not speak Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a holy language which people chant during ceremonies and so on, and they write various religious texts in Sanskrit, but people don't talk Sanskrit. But from the time of Zen Buddhism, what those people actually talked, the way they talked to each other, was written down. And from that time on, the writing of these sacred texts was actually the way these people talked.

[16:56]

Which is part of what makes reading Zen texts difficult, because it isn't classical Chinese, it's colloquial Chinese. and his colloquial Chinese varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, or at least from province to province. So, as far as I know, this is an example of colloquial speech, or fairly ordinary colloquial speech. However, this question poses the basic philosophical questions that almost all, I mean, one of the basic philosophical questions of all philosophy, a question about existence and non-existence. Or you can also hear it as have or have not, or yes or no. But by using these two words, these words just happen to be words that ordinary people can use, but also they're philosophical terms about existence and non-existence. So, does dog Buddha nature exist or does dog Buddha nature not exist?

[18:00]

But also, does Buddha nature exist or not exist? All this stuff is going on in this question. And it's also happening on the level of ordinary cultural speech. So on the conventional level, there's at least two layers. On the conventional level. On the conventional level, the question is, does the dog have Buddha nature or not have it? That's the question. Does the dog's Buddha-nature exist or not exist? That's a conventional question. All right? Yes? Does that mean it's the same question as if I would ask, does the existence of a dog influence our codependent arising in its soul, or is it not necessary to have a dog for any adult, for our arising as human beings? Would you say it again, please?

[19:02]

You say it just the same way, please, if you can. Does that mean, if a dog has Buddha nature, that only if the existence of the dog itself plays a role in the human beings' codependent arising, or if it's not necessary to the dog? I don't think you asked it that way the first time. I think the first time you asked it was more interesting. I think you said, does the existence of the dog, right? That's the way you asked it first. Does the existence of the dog, and then you could say, contribute or play a part in dependent co-arising. Okay? Now, would he be asking that question on the On the conventional level. On the conventional level, I don't think so. I mean, you could say so, but it doesn't look that way. It looks like he's talking about existence or non-existence.

[20:06]

Dependent co-arising is not existence or non-existence. Okay? Dependent co-arising is how things really exist. All right? and how they really, because things exist dependently co-arising, they do not exist or not exist. If they don't exist, then dependent co-arising is not an issue, because they don't arise. If they do exist, then they wouldn't have been produced co-dependent. So dependent co-arising, your question is actually a question on the non-conventional level. Okay? Your question is the next level later. All right? Huh? I thought it was conventional. I heard some guy talking about flies, you know, and he said they're just legal creatures, you know.

[21:11]

That's unbelievable, because otherwise they wouldn't exist. You can use them for... Yes, but... For a person to think that flies are useful or useless, according to some... For them to say they're useless certainly is a conventional understanding. Okay? But to add... But to ask, as you asked, do dogs play an important role in dependent co-arising of our lives, for example, the question makes sense in conventional language, but the question points beyond the realm of does it exist or not exist. This question gives two alternatives and doesn't really, on the conventional level we're hearing this, this question also will be heard on the other level. But on this level, the question on a conventional level, the conventional level of discourse is existence and non-existence.

[22:16]

That's conventional world. That's the ordinary world. Things exist or don't exist. A equals A, okay? And A is not B. A exists, and if A exists, then A does not equal non-existent A. All right? Non-existent A, an example of non-existent A is B. There's also C, and so on. Those are all various non-existent A's. All right? So A, the existent A, does not equal non-existent A. That's conventional reality. The first level is, which is it? Is it A or B? Your question is pointing to the next layer. So remember your question. All right, so this is a perfectly good conventional question, which people care about.

[23:20]

And I'm not criticizing it, I'm just saying that's the conventional world. Does this exist or not exist? Do you have a dollar or not? Are you right or wrong? Is this good or bad? Does good exist or not exist? Does bad exist or not exist? Does Buddha nature exist or not exist? Does it belong to a category of existence or a category of non-existence? The conventional level is one of those alternatives, and in between we don't have a way to talk about it. We do have a way to talk about it, but conventional understanding won't stand for the answer. So this is the first question of a two-part story on the conventional level. Yes. I was just curious about the or. Or? The word or. In Chinese construction, they say, you know, they say, you know, yao bu yao, eo bu eo. It's kind of like, do you want it or not want it?

[24:25]

Are you hungry or not hungry? But it's very specific. Like, our or is very specific. I mean, the translation is really pretty tight for that word. Or the character that depicts it. There isn't really an or. It's just like this. Like, eo. Like Yao, you want. You say Yao, Bu Yao. Want, not want. Okay, so there really is an or. It's like Buddha nature exists, but instead of saying, instead of saying, in Chinese, it's a Yao and Wu. Instead of saying Yao, Bu, instead of saying Yao, Bu, Wu, or Yao, Bu, Yao, they say Yao, Mu. Okay. The R, I think, is kind of implied. Okay. But I'm not really a Chinese scholar, so I'm sorry. Yes?

[25:26]

On a conventional level, wouldn't you say that the monk who posed the question was fully aware at the time he posed it that the dog had buddhism? On the conventional level, I think it looks like he wasn't. But don't you think that he, probably like the rest of us in this room, had heard the teachings of the Buddha Dharma and was aware that all beings possess Buddha nature? And so, still on the conventional level, however, he... In the first story, okay, he's going to pretend like he doesn't. In the second story, he obviously does know that. He's heard that teaching. Okay. He does pretend like he doesn't. Actually, I would have said, no, he doesn't pretend like he doesn't. He pretends like, what did I say? He pretends like he's got a question about how it is the case. that if the dog does have Buddha nature, why would it take this form?

[26:32]

He's pretending, or he's acting out the story that he's got a problem with Buddha nature coming into a dog. That's the story. On the conventional level, he seems to be saying that. He seems to be really wondering whether it exists or not exists on the conventional level. Could he... Yes? Yes? Could he be aware that the dog has the Buddha nature, but is it to be expressing the doubt? Could he be aware that the dog has the Buddha nature, but is it expressing the conventional doubt? Yes, but to be fully aware... Do you understand? To understand that the dog has the Buddha nature is conventional understanding, okay? it's not ultimate understanding that dog has a Buddha nature. So conventionally he could understand that dog has a Buddha nature and have a conventional doubt as to whether that's really so.

[27:38]

Or he certainly could understand that the teaching is that dog has Buddha nature but have some doubt as to how that would be the case on a conventional level. However, this guy could still be asking this question without holding back view. But on a conventional level, it sounds like he's perfectly, he's playing out the scenario of really thinking that the dog's Buddha nature is an existent or non-existent category by the nature of his question. He's playing a perfect, straight line here of conventional understanding. All right? I would say you could see it that way. The person who has conventional understanding could ask this question just like this. Yeah? What is Buddha nature? What are we talking about? What is Buddha nature? It is dependently co-arisen being.

[28:39]

It is when all things advance forward and confirm self. That's Buddha nature. That's the definition of it. So, if some say someone's being greedy, and that's what's happening, that's... That's what's appearing, yeah. So, but that's not Buddha nature. Greed is not Buddha nature. No, greed is not Buddha nature. No, it's not. But the dependently co-arisen greed is buddha-nature. If you look at buddha-nature, if you look at greed and say, there's greed, okay, see it? There is a thing called greed. That's not buddha-nature, that's greed. However, if what you see there is a dependently co-arisen thing called greed,

[29:48]

then you see Buddha-nature. Because you see anything that's created that situation? Because you see creation on the head of a piece of greed. Aren't you also Buddha-nature yourself at that time? At that time, in order to see that, you're not someplace else. You're not sitting over here watching the greed. There's not somebody else besides the greed. Otherwise, there would be a piece of the codependent arising left out. That wouldn't be codependent arising. That would be codependent arising minus a very important ingredient, namely yourself. But if there's just greed, even if you weren't there, but there was greed, but you still didn't see greed dependent on the co-arising, still you wouldn't understand that greed itself is radiance. But when you see greed dependently co-arising, all things coming together to make that greed, again, when I say you see that, what I say is that when what's happening is dependently co-arising greed, and that's it, that's Buddha nature.

[31:01]

And all beings are like that. Every being is dependently co-arising. So the Buddha sees all beings as dependently co-arising. Buddha is not someplace else. Buddha is just the dependently co-arising sentient beings all over the place. That's the Buddha nature. So then somebody might ask, when they hear about Buddha nature, it sounds like really a good deal, so people want to know about it. Well, does it belong to the category of existence or non-existence? You can ask a question like that. As a matter of fact, if you're going to talk about the existence of Buddha nature, in order to have a little talk about it, and Buddhist practitioners do talk about this because that's all that they do talk about, because they like to talk to each other, they communicate and dance together verbally, they talk about this very thing. And this is one very straightforward discussion about does the Buddha nature exist or not exist and playing now with another dimension in there of the dog. Say like you're juggling some infinite number of balls and then add one more ball called the dog.

[32:10]

That's the name of this case. And while you're doing that you can say now does this exist or not exist? And this question works on the conventional level. It must work on the conventional level. And it does. There it is. Any problems? No. Yeah. I'm sorry, I have to go back to this A equals A, and therefore also A just minus 1. How is that different from saying A is greater than A? A is more than A. A is... You mean A equals A, therefore A is greater than A? Is that what you mean? Or just forget the A. Just straight to the A does not equal A. That's not conventional reality. That's not conventional reality.

[33:14]

But no problem, if you want to say that, go right ahead. Is that saying the same thing, that A is greater than A? Is what saying the same as what? That A does not equal A, that grace does not equal grace. Grace is more than grace. Is that the same? No, not the same. It's different, as you can see. Isn't it? Listen, A is not A. A is greater than A. Two different statements, right? They are different words, yeah. On a conventional level, they are different, aren't they? A can also just as well be less than A. Anyway, you can say more or less, that's fine, but basically, let's first of all just recognize A is completely not A. There's no such thing as A. And how do we know that?

[34:20]

By simply realizing what it means that A is equal. The fact that A equals A completely entails that A is not A. If you want to say A is more than A or less than A, That's fine. I mean, I don't know if it bears on the... See, it doesn't necessarily... I don't see that it bears on the issue. The issue is release me from A. Release me from suffering. Release me from attachment. Release me from misery. So if somehow you can show me that A is greater than A will release me, then I'll say it's the same as A equals A. A equals not equal A. But I don't see it myself. Therefore, I don't see them sound the same, and I don't see the functional equivalent in terms of release. Do you? If you do. Oh, I don't see it. Okay, good. And the answer is... It does have... It does have good regions.

[35:22]

So on the conventional level, that means that it has us. All right? Which is the opposite of it doesn't have it. Okay? Any problem with that? It is that simple. You have a problem with that? Okay, you can have a problem with simple things. The translation says, does the dog have Buddha nature or not? And he says, yes. Which is really like, he doesn't say, yes, it does not, or yes, it does. He just says, yes. I mean, that's an either-or question, and the answer is yes, we're answering the question. The word yes, I just told you... Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It means yes, has, and exists. Form and emptiness? No, it does not mean form and emptiness. It means existence and nonexistence. Emptiness is this character. This character here is emptiness. It's pronounced ku in Japanese and gong in Chinese.

[36:43]

Emptiness does not mean non-existence. Emptiness is the same as the pentacle rising. Emptiness does not mean it's over in this category. Emptiness is the way things really are. Namely, the way things really are is that they appear, but they lack inherent existence. It isn't that they're not there. That's this. But nonexistence is one of the players in the big drama of emptiness. I'm having a problem with the basics of the question because I don't quite understand how you can use the words have and have not when talking about full election. You don't understand? I don't understand how the idea of it being possessed I don't get what... No, it sounds like there's some question of... You know, like, if there's a possibility of having or not having, then there's already this big separation or what, right?

[38:04]

That's conventional reality. That's the way it is in the conventional world. So this question, from that perspective, can only address the love story, right? Exactly. That's what I'm saying. It's the first time I want to go through the stories, both these stories, on the conventional level first, because they work on the conventional level. And that's the way people ordinarily think. Like you have something or don't have it. And like it's a thing which you could have or not have. In Buddha nature, people think the same way about it. But that doesn't give any sense. No, it doesn't, but they do it. Conventional reality does not make sense if you think about it long enough. But, it's still going on very nicely. And people talk about having or not having anyway. And as a matter of fact, if you violate that, then you leave out almost everybody on the planet. So, this monk...

[39:08]

who perhaps is quite well-educated and quite an enlightened person, ask the question just like a conventionally oriented person would, even though, if you press it, it's not going to hold up. But it makes sense on a conventional level, and it's very important to understand that it does, I feel, because it does. Because the conversation goes on. Look at the way he answers it, the great master. How did he answer the question which he said doesn't make any sense? He answers it by, yes, it does have it. Just as though it was a reasonable question. He doesn't say, please. He doesn't twist the guy's nose off. He doesn't walk off. The guy says, have or not have? She says, have. So he's playing, on a conventional level, he's playing the conventional game.

[40:15]

There's also something else going on here, though, which we'll talk about later. But it's very important, I think, to see that they're both going on at once, that we can play the conventional game, which maybe doesn't make sense, really, but that doesn't mean we can't talk to people in their own terms. It doesn't mean to say, I won't talk to you that way. He can talk to them simultaneously on that level, and simultaneously completely playing another game with them, which they may or may not know, but in fact they're playing it with you. And you don't have to mess around with conventional reality to deliver this other message right along with it. And even if you don't know it, or they don't know it, it's coming right along. And this story is so nicely coming along with both of them. Can you create karma in ultimate reality? Is karma something strictly defined by conventional reality?

[41:18]

Yes. There's a law here. And then the monk says, on the conventional reality, okay, I asked you, does it exist or not exist? You said, it exists. Okay, then, why would the Buddha nature, this wonderful thing, come into, push into a skin bag, like such a skin bag. On a conventional level, what's that saying? Why would it, the form, he's not happy with the form that it takes. Why would it be in a dog? Yeah, why would the wonderful Buddha nature come into a dog? Or into a crummy person? Or into an alcoholic? Or a murderer? Why would it go in there? Why wouldn't it go into a nice kind, gentle, sweet, sincere, virtuous, etc., etc., radiant being.

[42:26]

Why into this skin there? And dogs have had various levels of popularity in China, but apparently at this time... since it has, since it possesses, since it exists, why is it then in this skin bag? Or another translation, why did it push into this skin bag? Okay, so on a conventional level, that's what it says. It says, why would it, if it exists, if it really is an existent thing, why would it go into this skin bag? And then he gives the answer, because it knowingly and willingly transgresses. There's one translation here, it says, because he knows, or it knows, yet deliberately transgresses. Again, here is, now this brings in another conventional story.

[43:32]

It's not, it's conventional, but it's not like conventional in Western, among Western people necessarily. that it's a conventional description of the, you know, it's a conventional narrative of the transmission of birth and death in the realm of existence and non-existence. Okay? And the story is that enlightened beings willingly take birth in order to manifest a karmic spacesuit or working clothes so that they can interact with other karmic beings who are suffering. You can't interact with suffering beings unless you've got the same equipment. So the spirit of infinite compassion and wills

[44:39]

that compassion that takes a material body of a human being or other animals, but particularly a human being, that takes that form in order to work for the benefit of all beings. And in order, according to another conventional teaching of Buddhism, is in order to take physical form, you have to transgress. That birth, that consciousness that causes conception is a defiled consciousness. You can't get a birth by being kind of open-minded and kind of like, well, whatever, man, I'd be born or not born, I don't care. I mean, I have this vow to take form, but, you know, no hurry, I'll wait my turn, and I don't care who I have in my appearance, No problem. You keep thinking like that, you just keep waiting. You need a body. Which is fine, but eventually if you're going to go to work, you've got to say, okay, I notice everybody keeps going ahead of me.

[45:45]

And the ones that are going ahead of me are not bodhisattvas. Maybe I should button line here. All these creeps are being born and causing more trouble. Well, then you, sir, have to bend down. and go in the same way they go in. You have to assert your right to be born, and you have to choose which parents you want and which one you like best. You have to think sex is interesting, and you have to have a preference about which one is your partner, or which of the two partners you think is cutest. Well, I kind of like the clumsy, dumb one. Well, I kind of like that sensitive one. I like that one as being real such and such. You have to bias yourself. You have to warp yourself. You have to make a preference. You have to stain yourself in order to get born. This is a conventional story of birth. Birth is actually a conventional story.

[46:50]

It's a transgression. You have to... ...equipment necessary. If defilement is necessary in order to benefit beings, let's get defiled. Okay? This is a conventional description I just made. It may sound weird to you. It is weird. And again, remember, weird means fate. It is weird if you don't understand and bring it to consciousness. Otherwise, it's just simply a mechanical description in conventional language of a Buddhist story, which is probably similar to most other creations, birth stories of most other cultures. But this is the Buddhist story of how you get born, with a special tilt on it of this is how bodhisattvas get born, because bodhisattvas willingly do this out of compassion. Again, this is a conventional description. Yes? When you say conventional, I'm sort of, at the same time, hearing traditionalist. Do you mean, like, this is in the sutras, or is this Abhidharma, or...?

[47:58]

It's Abhidharma, it's in the sutras, but it's in conventional language. Conventional language is what? Slang. Ma'am? I told you at the beginning what conventional language is. What do you mean? I'll look the other way so you can tell me. Whisper it in my ear. He is a and he is not the. He is a and he is not the. That's conventional, okay? That's conventional. He is a. This person, this karmic line, this line of bodhisattvic vow, is this line of bodhisattvic vow, this parent is this parent, this parent is not another parent, this is the mother, this is the... and this is how it works, and it doesn't work another way, and this really is existent, this is an existent way of things working, this is how things come to exist.

[49:05]

Okay? So that's what I mean by conventional. The non-conventional thing is that this whole process... Okay, listen... This whole process and every step of the way is dependently co-arisen so that this nothing in this whole process has any existence. This is non-existent thing causing non-existent things. There's no cause and effect here. We're not talking about that way yet. This is a conventional story. All right? Yes. Yes. When he says, because he knows, he deliberately transgresses. Yes. Okay. When does he know and how does he know? When does he know? When does he know he has Buddha nature and not Buddha nature? He does not know he has Buddha nature.

[50:06]

He does not know he does not have Buddha nature. That's not, bodhisattvas don't do that. but they do intentionally take birth and are benefit beings. You don't have to believe in the existence or non-existence of Buddha-nature to get born, but you have to believe in his existence of your mother and father. But you don't have to get into philosophical stuff to get born. Once you're born, then you get into philosophical stuff. And then you have to recognize this conventional level of philosophical discourse and then penetrate to a deeper level. But the birth process is not necessarily a meditation on Buddha nature. It is because of your vow to realize your Buddha nature that you vowed to take birth for the benefit of all beings, it's because of your wish to develop compassion and realize the Buddha nature and help all beings realize the Buddha nature.

[51:15]

Because of that vow, that propels you to get in trouble, to go into a defiled situation which you wouldn't have to get into except by your vow. So that would be my next question, if I knew that and I understand that, then why would I deliberately transgress that, that nature, that Buddha nature that I already have, before I'm born, right? And after you're born too. After I'm born too. Deliberately transgress that. In order to get born, in order to get born. It's like, why would you pay money to get into a room full of your family? Well, the reason is because they charge you an entrance fee to get in. You say, okay, I'll pay because I want to be in there with those people. They say the price is you have to defile yourself. You say... Well, okay, I'll do it.

[52:17]

Because most of all, more than my own purity, I care about saving beings. That's my real agenda. I mean, I'd rather not defile myself. I'd like to come in all clean as a banking, all uncommitted and flexible, you know. But if I have to do that in order to help people, and not only that, but someone could even explain to you, actually, not only do you have to do it to get in there, but it actually wouldn't work very well if you didn't, because then you'd be on a different standard than you. You wouldn't really be in their soup. So you kind of have to defile yourself to get in anyway, otherwise you're not the same as them. Some other beings come in, not by the vow, But, you know, just simply out of greed. And they really, they have not developed a vow very strongly. Their recent enmity, they don't have much understanding of this. Like Bodhisattvas. Like Bodhisattvas. All the more because of their compassion, they're willing to dirty themselves in order to help beings.

[53:22]

And they know, number one, that they have to do it to get a body anyway, everybody does, and number two, that it wouldn't work if they didn't. Because they have to convert the same crap that everybody else has to crap or work with, they have to work with the same stuff anyway, so they might as well just get down and dirty. So for those two reasons, they're willing to come in the defiled route. And there's no problem because defilement is dependent on code. It's really not a problem. But you have to be willing to do that. And that doesn't stop you. So that's a conventional story too. I just told a conventional story. The reason why it doesn't bother me is not a conventional story. No, no, but the fact that you have to be defiled... And the fact that bodhisattvas make a vow to be reborn as though there were such a thing as a birth and a death, that's a conventional story.

[54:31]

That somebody's born, that's a conventional story. That somebody dies, that you need a body, and that bodies exist or don't exist. To think about this story on the level of that the story exists or doesn't exist, that story, that level of how does it come into a body, that's the conventional level. but it also is simultaneously working on the other level, as you can see, as you will be able to see. I hope. Yes? So, like, in Vecinal, do we meet the language level, the conceptual level? The language level? Conceptual level, yes. Right. Logical level. Huh? The logical level, right. And I'm just trying to show you that this story works on the conventional logical level of A equals A and A does not equal B. It works on that level. But they're asking the question, and Zhao Zhou, the master, and actually I think we'll be seeing this excellent monk, they're both operating completely on the conventional level.

[55:36]

So that once you have Buddhist education, about how these scenarios go, you could follow through this still dealing with existence and non-existence as though things fell into those categories. When people first approach Buddhism and first learn about it, they approach it from the point of view of existence and non-existence. When people first hear about Buddha, they think, well, Buddha exists or doesn't exist. Usually people think of that right away. If they didn't think about that right away, they probably wouldn't even, they wouldn't be here at any first price. But anyway, most people approach Buddhism from the point of view, if Buddha nature exists or doesn't exist, people have it or don't have it. There's enlightened people or not enlightened people. Actually, even after years of study, it's very difficult not to have this question. Yeah. Of course, good asking.

[56:37]

Thank you for talking to us. We didn't talk about the decision to be born. In the Bharata state, that's going on, that kind of cognizance, thinking in those kinds of terms? What kind of terms? Should I be born, should I cut one? No, you don't seem to think about being born. You don't seem to think, I'm going to get born. You just allow yourself to be interested in sex. And because of being involved in sexual activity and being born through sexual activity innumerable times, you do have a kind of interest in that direction.

[57:39]

It's pretty easy to arouse that. And then if it's activated again, It's not like this, they sometimes say, you know, there's this little thing up there, you know, in the bardo, but really I think that it's just, there's this momentum of life, and this momentum of life can be attracted towards or be interested in or become invested in sexual arenas again because of past interest and such. And that interest in sexual activity and also even a preference for which one of the partners causes you to be born into this physical context and causes this physical context to be enlivened. by the force of this past life interacting with this physical situation, the lights go on and in a situation where there was two things, neither one of which were alive, suddenly there's life and there's consciousness, there's conception.

[58:41]

So at that time you have a knowledge of whether you're being born into the past or whether you're being born to be bodhisattva? If it's a bodhisattva, they actually do this knowingly. They don't necessarily think, I'm going to be born, but they notice there is this interest, and there is this defilement, there is this preference, and they're aware. So most beings are not aware at that time. Bodhisattvas are aware at that time. So you still go through this actual process, but with a work. Yes. And it's exactly the same process that everybody else goes through. And you can't go through it cleanly. Otherwise, you can't come in. But with your bodhisattva, you don't want to be out of the room. You want to be in there with the other people because these are your friends. These are the people you love. You want to hang out with these people, because this is your joy, you know?

[59:50]

And this is what makes you even a better bodhisattva, is to hang around with these creeps. Just kidding. Okay, that's the first story on the conventional level. Now, second story on the conventional level. Same question, same conventional meaning. Other answer? No. This is the more famous answer. The Mu, it's the Mu koan. So in the Rinzai koan system that we developed in Japan with Hakuin, this became the first koan in the system.

[61:01]

And the Mumon-kon, this is the first koan. This is the barrier koan of the koan system of Rinzai Zen in Japan. And it was the first koan in the Gateless Gate Collection in China. So probably Master Mumon thought it was a very important koan too. And it is. So this is the other answer, which again, on the conventional level, is just the other answer. No, it doesn't have the image. Just the opposite answer, which, did you all understand what we mean by that? My lips. Huh? My lips. Huh? So if that's the answer, on the conventional level, if you're a Buddhist monk and Mahayana Buddhist monk, you know, you've heard the teaching, all living beings possess a Buddha nature, have a Buddha nature, so if that's the case, why doesn't a dog?

[62:20]

Okay, there too. You hear the teaching, all beings have the Buddha nature, and you understand that dualistically, Do you understand that dualistically? Dualistically, that means that all beings have the Buddha nature in the way of having, which is the opposite of not having. That's what we mean by having. That's conventional dualistic understanding, right? Any problem with that? Okay. So then, if that's the case, That's the question. So if Zhao Zhou says, oh, if that's the question, on the conventional dualistic level, then I'll explain to you why it is that it doesn't have Buddha nature, in the conventional dualistic sense of it doesn't have. The reason is because it's involved in karmic consciousness, which is the dualistic answer for why we're not Buddhists. That's the dualistic answer for why we're not Buddhas.

[63:23]

Also, that we're not Buddhas is also dualistic. Or that we don't have Buddha nature. Okay? So that's the answer. Makes sense, right? You already know about that one. You might have a short course, sort of dualistic course on karma now. Well, it'll be short at the beginning anyway. There are three kinds of karma. What are they? Body, speech and mind. Body, speech and mind, right. There are three kinds of karma. I always have trouble accepting that there are only three kinds, but anyway, that's what they say, three kinds. And they also say, which also seems very mechanical, but anyway, that's what they say, is that first is mental.

[64:27]

And then there can be verbal and physical karma following from the mental. This story works perfectly well dualistically. As a matter of fact, karma a dualistic story. But not exclusively. Because non-duality does not have any problem with duality. Does that mean that things that codependently arise can lead to karma traces? Pardon? Things that codependently arise can lead to karma traces? Yep. There can be codependently arisen... Well, no. Things that codependently arise don't leave traces, but there can be codependently arisen traces.

[65:32]

That's not the kind of traces there are. From the codependently arisen karma? From the codependently arisen karma come codependently arisen karma, which can be sometimes in the form of codependently arisen karmic traces. which is actually just traces. Okay, so first there's mental, then after mental, there's physical and verbal karma. Mental karma precedes those two. You don't have physical karma before there's a mental karma. We can talk about reflexes, like tap the knee, right? Pop, and the knee goes pop. A knee going like that is not karma. It's just a reflex of the body, it's not karma. Even if it causes somebody to trip and fall? Pardon? Even if it causes somebody to trip and fall?

[66:39]

Yeah, even if it causes somebody to trip and fall. Not all cause and effect is karma. Is there reflexive speech, like if somebody cuts you off when you're driving and you yell something at them? Seriously, it almost gets to the point where... If somebody cuts you off when you're driving and you yell something, I mean, some people, you get to the point where it's almost not even thought about, or it seems like you don't think about it. If you don't think about it before you say it, it ain't karma. So they say that mental karma is the source karma, or origin of karma, original karma. Physical karma is the form of karma, or the body of karma. And verbal karma, this is the important part, Jordan, verbal karma is the own being of karma.

[67:51]

What we call suvabhava. Suvabhava. Did you go on that a little bit more to get that? Yeah, yeah, I will. No problem. This is one of those neat little things, which I keep slipping my grass. Now, maybe it'll stick for a few years. Anyway, you can see why the mental is the source, right? That's where it starts. It all starts there, I'm saying to you. I can go into more detail on that too, maybe. The definition of karma. Karma, by the way, the root of karma is a Sanskrit root, K-R-I, or just K-R. Kriya, which means to make. Karma means fundamentally action. Action.

[68:56]

That's what it means. And it also includes, the teaching of karma includes the effects of actions. The definition of karma, the definition of karma is, in another sense, so the definition of karma, what it means is action, definition of it is what's called in our Sanskrit word, chetana. Chetana. And chetana is related also to the word, to the root chet, which means having to do with mind or awareness or knowing.

[69:58]

Chaitanya is the pattern or confirmation, or sometimes I say the watershed, or even the synergy of a moment of consciousness. Every moment of conscious life has some shape, some apparent shape, or watershed, or landscape, or topography. Various mental constituents are present in every moment of consciousness. If you look at a moment of consciousness, every one of them has a certain shape. If the shape looks like it's going in a certain direction, like if you poured water on top of it, if it looked like the water would flow over that way, That's the way the consciousness seems to be going. It's not going anywhere. It just looks like it's going that way. Or if it's going over this way, it would be going over that way. In some consciousnesses, if you look at them, you can't really tell where they're going.

[71:05]

The two primary directions that we're concerned about them going, are they going towards wholesomeness or towards unwholesomeness? Is the the majority or the predominance of the state of consciousness going towards something wholesome or going towards something unwholesome. There's other ways you could talk about it, but those are the two most popular things to look for. And a lot of state of consciousnesses, you can't tell which direction they're going. A lot of them. But there's plenty that you can tell, so don't worry about it. And there's many, many in every moment, I mean in every minute, so we have no shortage of ones where there seems to be a direction or a tendency. So the definition of karma is the way consciousness seems to be going.

[72:11]

Yeah, I'm wondering about what Tony said. I don't know, Chris, but anyways, Tony said, is it karma if you say something without thinking about it? How can you not think about something before you say it? Because it seems like it goes through the mind to come out the mouth. I'm not precluding the possibility that you could say something without thinking about it, that's all. We'd have to have a little bit more discussion for somebody to come up with an actual example, but if somebody can, I'd just say, okay, fine, that's not karma. Right, yeah. Because in order for it to be karma, it has to have some action to it. It has to be going somewhere. In order for it to be going somewhere, there's got to be some kind of mental pattern by which you tell it's going somewhere. So a verbal expression that wasn't going anywhere, if such a thing could happen, it wouldn't be karma.

[73:20]

It sort of has to be predicated on the thought of it going somewhere, of it doing something. If it isn't doing anything, if you could imagine a state that really has no direction, clearly, not just that you can't even see what direction it's going, but there's no mental predicate before the speech happens, it was just a reflex somehow. For example, if somebody pokes you, that's not karma, necessarily. It might just be... So there has to be a position? Yeah. There has to be some kind of mental pattern or mental confirmation before the speech. is not really speech. It's a sound, but it's not really speech. That's why, we go to the next, so form, the form of karma has been a body that also may not be too difficult for you to see, right? So based on some thought, this can be translated into a posture.

[74:22]

And by the way, karma, his postures, it's not movements. His postures are Now, why would they say that speech, I told Leon already today, why would they say speech is the essence or the own being of karma? What's so special about speech? Among the three types of karma, speech is the one that's most like karma. Why is speech the one that's most like karma? Which is sort of like speech, the way speech is, is like the essence of karma. Description. Description. It describes. It describes, yes, speech is kind of descriptive, like consciousness itself. The shape or the description of the consciousness is the definition of the karma of that moment of thought. Speech is somewhat descriptive.

[75:23]

Consciousness is not descriptive, but if you looked at the consciousness and you're aware of it, you could see somehow the shape of the consciousness in some sense is a description. Its shape is a description. But speech is in a way, only exists that way. So if you listen to me now, if I go, if I go, that's not verbal karma. Makes me tired. That's not all. My speech starts to become defined. It becomes verbal karma because it takes a shape. So that's the word, as speech, because it has these words, and because it's... I have trouble making a thing out of what I say before it comes into words. Now, if I speak in Chinese and you don't speak Chinese, but I know Chinese, it still counts.

[76:28]

But if I'm making sounds and they don't make any sense to me or to you, they're not yet as things. Plus, there isn't even in the background, I will write this, but really I can also say I don't yet understand this. There's a word there. But the word back there is mental understanding that I'm not yet making words. When it comes out into words, the words are like, that's the essence of karma, is that a thing comes into a thing. It comes into a definition, and it seems to be doing something. That's what karma is. A defined thing that seems to be going somewhere. And speech is like, that's what speech is. So speech is just like karma itself. It separates and divides, too. It separates and divides, too. There's a kind of mush, you know, and then when it comes together into a thing, and a thing that also has a direction and going someplace and doing something, that's karma.

[77:33]

And it can be verbal, physical, or mental. But actually, if you look at the actual event, there is no action. There really isn't. But that takes us to the next level. And now it's nine o'clock, so we should stop. So next time, you can study this case. Next time we'll go through the same story and we'll look at it at the level that this monk is asking a non-dual question. And you can see how that's happening at the same time. And how you wouldn't have to change the discourse at the conventional level, to be having this non-conventional, non-dualistic conversation. And, of course, that's the definition of a non-dualistic conversation, is you don't have to change the duality to have a non-dual conversation. If you did, it would be another dualistic conversation.

[78:34]

So look at the story. Now you study the text and you look at the story and see if you can see how these questions could be. The monk could be asking the question, not all meaning that he's asking the guy, does it have it or not have it. But you could ask that question without meaning that at all and still talk like this. As a matter of fact, in conventional language, there's no other way to talk. And there's not a special kind of conventional language that you use, called real special conventional language, that you use to have a non-dual conversation. Because if you did, it would just be another dualistic conversation. But you'd be really deluded then. So you just use completely normal conventional language. At the same time, the story is between an enlightened monk and a great Buddha. And now this monk has set a beautiful trap for Zhaozhou, according to commentators. See if you can see how nicely these two levels go, and then next week we'll talk about, we'll sort of think about what it's like on the other level, and then we'll see how we work together, okay?

[79:50]

I hope that wasn't too much of a dualistic shock for you. This has been such an hour and a half totally in dualism. That's right. If you can stand to be totally dualistic, you'll definitely be refreshed. But it's hard. It's hard to be dualistic. Okay, anything you want to say? Yes? Yes, Wes? Can a dog create speech karma? Can a dog not create speech karma? I don't know if animals can, but please educate me.

[80:56]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_82.66