This is our last colon class this summer. We started with case 59, I believe. And looking through case 59, what did you see? Don't look. Peter, don't look in the book. If you don't remember, it's okay. Does nobody remember case 59? The dead snake. So what did you see through the dead snake's case? Right now I'm seeing the mind's like a sieve.

[01:07]

I don't know who's that. Very good. And then case 60, what did you see through case 60? Nirvana. Nirvana? Mm-hmm. Is that with or without spiritual pain? Lepso party. Lepso party. That's it?

[02:09]

60? The old ones going nowhere. The old ones going nowhere? And when you see the old ones going nowhere, what do you see through that? Rockets to the moon. That we're in good company? That we're in good company? They were already there. They were already there. Uh, can I... I see more permission to be myself. You saw permission to be yourself?

[03:09]

Mm-hmm. Do you remember case 59? Did you see permission to be yourself there? Uh, that's all comes to mind. It's more like taking a second look at myself, maybe, in 59. Or taking a second look at what I think of myself. That's really what I got from that. Take a second look at? At what I think of myself, or what my views are. And K61. What did you see through K61? Thank you.

[04:10]

Only awareness everywhere. Only awareness everywhere? Music. Hmm? Music. Music? Uh-huh. What's the music? It's a good answer. What's happening? Hmm? What's happening? These first three cases are interrelated.

[05:31]

Of course, they all are, but they're interrelated. I wondered if you could say how they're interrelated. or how you see they're interrelated. It just seems like there are all three pointing sort of directly right here. The first one is saying, There's no way to get off the path. The grass is deep. It's always just right there. And then the second one is saying... When you're really familiar with yourself, it's just being yourself.

[06:39]

And the third one is... is again the same thing of just like everything is one and one is everything. There's also a source in the point here. Yes? What occurred to me tonight is that the first one was like alert, alert, don't go back to sleep. Mm-hmm. You know. And the second, or case 60, was more like the relaxed art of mastery. That sort of, what that would, what that might be to people who were alert and awake and at ease. And 61 is more like a reminder or instruction of what that is, or that road. In a way, it's sort of a practice.

[07:43]

I would say, how do you get it that way? Mm-hmm. This one is more like, how do you get it that way? Mm-hmm. Be here right now, present. Mm-hmm. I cheated, I looked, yeah. But, nevertheless, they all say that, in my mind, they all say it'd be right here. They all say that what is going on right now is enlightenment. 61 says that one road of Buddha is what is happening right now. Snake is what is happening right now, that they're all in my eyes, just that what is happening right now is enlightenment.

[08:46]

Yeah, that's right, but that's not in a relationship, that's equating them, okay? So how are they... Sorry, I thought you wanted kind of an equation. That's fine, but how are they different and how are they different and related? West. In the beginning, there's 59 is a turning back, the activity of stepping backwards and turning back in which the student comes on par with the master. And in 60, it's, in some sense, an example of perfect activity.

[09:58]

is composed of two equals. And in 61, we're in some sense back to the beginning of the student who we meet as a student, and the types of teacher, and seeing the perfection of teaching, in some sense, in that one of those I guess as well as a deeper level, that connection between the doctrines of interdependence and the momentaryness of being. I'm 60, so I'm in trouble.

[11:02]

But 59, 61, and 59, and another type of openness, like 20 teacher, and then But not dwelling there and being able to respond. Say it again. Which case now? 59. 59 is what? Openness. Open? Yes. But not dwelling on that. And sort of a non-responsive state and an overly quiet state, but... and being able to respond with opinions. And then in the 61 layers the same kind of theme of not crying and then going to the not crying emptiness.

[12:10]

Which is a response. 59, we're just listening to people. There's that sense of the mountains and rivers, or mountains and mountains, and they're not mountains, and they're mountains again. The particular of 59, the particulars of 61, and in the middle, there's just a still. I'm not sure if that really helps, but this sounds like that to me. Did you have your hand raised, David? No? If you did, I would call him. Eric? It seems like they're all about a relationship between...

[13:15]

Coming and going, they all have a road or a destination in blood. There's a kind of churn, but they do it in different ways. In 59, it starts out with the . Lunging on forward, there's a kind of churn. So if you're going and you go back to right here with the snake, then there's another churn, and the snake goes off to the grass. And in 60, you have the sense where she is asking him, do you want to go? Do you want to go to this part? And this is the sense, I think we're all familiar with it. Somewhere else is where it's going on. And he just turns again, between the two of them, turns into the moment of being there. And then she goes. And I think what happens in 61 is that the student sort of asks about this, this coming and going, and the first answer is right here.

[14:21]

The road is right here. The road ahead is right here. And then the turn at the end of that one is the road is everywhere. Suddenly it explodes. You can't rest on just turning, being in the here and now, and being one with exactly what's happening. Because it's crazy. It's all over the place. It's up in the heavens and it's down in the sea. And then it's, do you understand it? Yes, Micah. You moved your arm, Micah. So, the thing that I didn't hear brought up yet is this negation and affirmation, or, you know, this grasping or holding still, this granting or releasing, and this is going on in all three cases, and then also how the different cases show that differently, and there's different levels of aptitude,

[15:59]

interaction around these two styles of enlightened activity. And there's also different levels of revelation of the mutual containment of these two styles in these three cases. So everybody's contribution has been a contribution, but I haven't yet heard anybody say at all, which is pretty hard. These three cases, I would encourage you, if you can, to keep looking, you know, like, see how much you can pull out of the relationship between them, because they're different cases, and they're kind of about the same thing, and they're bringing out different things about the same kind of jewel. And there's more to be brought up than I've heard. And I don't know if the people who didn't say anything understood the people who did talk. But anyway, we've worked on these cases, and it would be good if you could integrate them and distinguish them.

[17:15]

Integrate them and disintegrate them. see how they're talking about the same thing, how the same things are going on in each one, but they're bringing up different aspects, and the people in the stories have different abilities, different levels of maturity, and so on, in the three stories. First story, you have teacher and student. Next story, you have two teachers. Next story, you have two teachers and a student. And so all this stuff's going on. It's these different takes on the way it works with different, when you have different elements together, you get different stories. And not better or worse, but when you have different elements, you get different things are brought out. But these three are kind of like focusing on kind of the same thing. Now this next one's a little bit different. And I don't mind going on to it, but it is a little bit different.

[18:19]

And I kind of feel like I could try to work this through with you tonight, but I kind of feel like it would be nice if you did it on your own. And I don't know how many of you can take the koan class this fall. or how many of you want to keep working on these cases, but it would be nice if each of you could articulate your view of each case and then show and have some sense of how they actually complement each other, how they bring out a forward picture of the same situation, the same dynamic of how how teaching, how learning happens between people. And how it happens and how you are so it can happen.

[19:25]

And how reality is such that it's possible to understand it through relationships. And how relationships are ways to realize reality and all that. And so on. And I don't know if you feel like you have enough tools to work on these cases. But those of you who come and talk to me, if you want to, you can come and talk to me about it, and I'll help you if you want to work on these. But we're in a class now. So in a way, you're probably not going to be starting a new colonize, most of you. I don't discourage you from doing that. I think my experience is most people don't move on too much into new stuff.

[20:33]

They want to stick, you know, work with the class. So you could go deeper with this material in the next, what is it, two months? September? Yeah, it's about two months, actually. the latter part of August, September, and the first part of October. You have two months to work on these cases, 60 days to try to integrate them. And if you want to come and talk to me about how they work. And from my point of view, you can go around these things again and again and get more and more fluent and more accessible and more material than this stuff. It's like, you know, this is these people's lives, right? There's lives there. So there's no end to how deep you can go in these stories and how fluent you can get in articulating what you see there.

[21:35]

And it's what you see there, you know? It's like, you say what you see. And you say what you see. You say what you see. You say what you see. And you can hear... you can start to hear whether what you're saying is integrating them and also not mushing together into just one thing, because they're different. So anyway, I invite you to do that because I think it looks like you have a lot you can grow on with these cases. I mean, maybe, but like you didn't know, you didn't seem to remember the first case, so it'd be nice if you like, what do you call it, replaced your, you know, like as Dogen says, replace your heart with these cases, replace your brain with these cases, have like a transplant, transplant the colon, you know.

[22:43]

Otherwise, that you won't be, you know, you won't be using them as fully as you could. So, again, since we're not going to be going, since you're not going to be studying a lot of koans between now and then, those of you who want to, why don't you work even more deeply on them. I don't know if we're going to, like, in a class, review these again, because probably some of you people will join, but... I'll say once again, I'd be happy to hear how you evolve with these stories, and not just the next two months. So I'm ready to do the next case, and I'll share some questions. Could you just say something about granting and releasing in case 59? Or, sorry, granting and holding.

[23:48]

In case 59? Yes. I asked Rob if he could say something about these two styles of releasing and holding, specifically in case 59. So how do you understand grasping or holding? Right now, how do you understand that? That it's strict, direct. How strict? Just this. And direct? Mm-hmm. and being strict and direct, meaning more or less strict and direct? Kind of hard for people to understand.

[25:00]

It's kind of hard for people to understand a direct method. I guess sometimes. It doesn't accommodate to people. The other one's rather accommodating, a little easier for people to feel like they understand. It's more relaxed and affirmative. Sort of like granting. So in case 59, Can you see, how can you, how can you see the, can you see the, is it easy to see the, the holding? Is the holding pointing out the dead snake to him? That the student's making some claim, taking a shortcut, sort of having gotten there? Well, the student's saying, you know, if you take a shortcut, then what?

[26:02]

Okay? If you want to take a shortcut, then what? The teacher says, there'd be a dead snake there. Okay. Does that sound like the granting way or the grasping way? Sounds pretty straightforward. Pretty straightforward and pretty strict. Grasping. Hmm? Strict. Yeah. Kind of saying, you want to take a shortcut? Even a shortcut's not really, what do you call it, it's not really the, taking a shortcut's kind of a little bit like the granting way. Want to take a shortcut? It sounds like maybe pretty direct, but the shortcut even is a little bit, not really strict. Does that make sense? So you try to take a shortcut, you're going to get confronted on that. So that's the grasping word, that's fully still. You can't even take a shortcut. You can't move. Try to move, there's going to be a dead snake there. So watch out, don't step on it.

[27:06]

What if you do step on it? You lose your light. You lose your light. Sounds like the same thing, right? Okay. He's tripped. He's tripped. Sounds pretty like holding still, right? Still. All right. Then what? That's what he says. Then what? It's lost? Hmm? It's lost. Then what? What if you try to find it? No. Then what? You can't. You can't? Is that the granting way? Hmm? No? No? What's the granting way? What would the granting way be? Sure you could find it. You don't see the granting way?

[28:19]

To make it into an it is like the grasping way, right? No. No? You can't even make it into an it in a grasping way. Well, to say the grass is deep, there's no place to look for it could be seen as a kind of releasing. That if there's no place to look for it, then there's nothing. This is kind of a release from the worry of having to find it. In the sense of the grass being deep is a sense of it being pervasive. That there's no one thing to focus your attention on. That there's a kind of release in the sense of it being lost or... Anyway, I have that feeling about it. Yeah, but also that could still be very strict, that you can't even... You know, if you step on it, you're done for. What if you don't step on it, you can't escape it? Then what? You're just lost. You know, you can't find it.

[29:20]

So that could be seen still as the granting way, but you can't even get it then. So where's the granting way? It doesn't seem like English corn. What? It doesn't seem like English corn, but where is it? I think it's... What? At the end? Well, it's saying this one's equally poisonous. I mean, if, you know, there's at least, you know, welcoming... Who's the equally poisonous? The students. Yeah. Is that granting? I think so. Yeah. So all the way through it looks like grasping and not allowing anything. Everywhere you go you can't move. You can't do anything in the first part of the stroke. Anything you try is not going to work. If you try anything, any maneuver, any manipulation, any strategy, it's not going to work. Either you're going to get confronted or you're going to get lost. Right?

[30:22]

So it looks like very strict, and then suddenly at the end he says, this one's equally poisonous. This student has turned into a snake. Yeah? Just a question of semantics. Using both the words holding, grasping. Yeah, holding still, grasping. Okay, but holding... To me, it sounds like what we're saying. Grasping has a whole other meaning to me. And so when we use the word itself, it's a little bit confusing. Is it such another thing? Well, the Chinese character is just one character. Okay, so it's both of those things. Yeah, you can try and say holding, grasping, holding still. holding still and grasping, and the other one is granting or releasing. One is very strict, complete, you can't add or subtract from it.

[31:28]

The other one is adaptable, accommodating, affirmative. And at the end of the story, I think that something's granted. But before that, it looks like nothing's granted. However, as a general rule, whenever there's one, the other one's there. And the last case, the second case, these two people can do both equally well. These two... yogis, these two adepts, they could both do these two styles very well, both of them, back and forth whenever it's appropriate. So in that story, they're switching off back and forth. In the third case, one's doing one, one's doing the other, but they're doing those two styles so fully they both completely include the other one.

[32:35]

And the first one is like holding still, holding still, holding still, granting. Grasping, grasping, granting. The other one is grasping, granting, grasping, granting. The third one is grasping, but so strongly that granting is right there. The other one is granting so fully that grasping is there. So it's one of the ways that these stories are interrelated, I would say. And to get the feeling for what it's like to tune into Use a story to look into a world where it's really strict. And then let go. And the other one, we're strict, relaxed, strict, relaxed, strict, relaxed. And the other one, we're strict, but really relaxed. And relaxed, but really strict. Serious, but really playful. Playful, but really serious.

[33:39]

Simultaneously. So that's one way. But if you can look at these stories and try to see the way the world can take on these different patterns. In all these cases, the dynamics there. But sometimes it looks like one side's really strong and then switches over to the other. Like the big dose of one and you can't see the other. And then a big dose of the other and you can't see the other. The other back and forth. And the other one. very strong version of one, but the other one's hidden in there. Very strong version of the other, the other one's hidden in there. And they're all talking about the same, they're all looking at the same reality. These are different ways of activity between us to enter into intimacy with reality. Yes. Yes. In 59, I'm not sure I understand how it suddenly is granted when he says this one's equally poisonous, talking about the student who's with him.

[34:46]

How is that granting? He's telling him that he's a master. That the student is? Yeah. Because normally you don't think, Master, you're being poisonous. Welcome to the conglomerate. Carolyn? Yes? No? No? You did all these things with your arms and everything. No? Okay. All right, okay. Yes? I had a question about the last line. Could it also be interpreted as the student came to the teacher presenting a reality and the teacher looked at the reality and said, well, no.

[35:52]

And at the end of the explanation of the teacher is very, you know, you know, what really goes on. What case do you turn? So, student goes to teacher, here's reality, is this an okay reality to have? And the teacher says, no, you can't have that reality. And at the end of their interaction he says, but this reality is equally poisonous. to think that what the teacher's explanation is, it includes questions. How do you feel about that? Fine. But the reality, so the student, either the student is not presenting reality, or the student could be presenting his understanding by saying, okay, here's my understanding. My understanding is, I'm going to ask you how to get there. I see the truth, and now I'm going to ask you, how do you get there fast?

[36:59]

So if he's presenting his understanding, then his understanding is the reality is someplace you can get too fast, or he'd like to get too fast. This is no good, according to the teacher. That's not going to work. If you try that, you're going to get in trouble. Now, it could be that he wasn't thinking that way, but in fact, even if he wasn't, even if he wasn't thinking, I'm presenting my reality, this is reality, I think, let me check it out with you, even if he wasn't thinking that way, he was presenting his understanding, whether he thought about it or not, he was showing. And it wasn't too good at that point, unless he was tricking him. But he evolved, either he was tricking him at the beginning, or he evolved. And what sign was there that he evolved? Look at the book. Do you remember what the sign, huh? Do you remember what the sign that he evolved was?

[38:03]

Watch out, teacher. Watch out, teacher, I've arrived. Now I'm going to get you. If you mess around, you won't let me move, I'm not going to let you move. So maybe he was that way at the beginning and just testing the teacher. You can give him that. Or he evolved. That way he put it at the beginning wasn't too good. You know what? It wasn't too good. Or it's a trick question. Right. So if it's a trick question, the teacher says, okay, I'll play along and that's no good. And then he plays a couple other tricks, but at some point he snaps out of it, or he comes out of hiding and says how he really feels. Which is, you watch out, teacher. How about you? Be careful. Make sure you practice what you just taught me. Now, a teacher could have responded to that in another grasping, holding still way, but he didn't.

[39:07]

The story could have gone on. He could have been tough on that one too, but he didn't. He didn't. There are stories where they don't do it that fast, where they push it further. Case 41. Try that one out. So now this case 62 is a little different, and it's kind of apropos of anybody who's going to go into Seixin, and if you're not going into Seixin, don't listen to this case. This case can, a little bit, what do you call it, this place, this could get, this could easily get so metaphysical or abstract that, you know, it might be kind of disorienting.

[40:27]

Huh? What? This case could get kind of abstract and kind of disorienting, so be careful of it. I love chaos. Yeah, well, this might be kind of like, you know, philosophical chaos. And so anyway, anybody need a copy? This case, another one which I think you can think about for a couple of months, study for a couple of months, and I feel okay about starting next fall with it again.

[41:47]

Is this a different cake on the previous three? In this case, I don't feel so much the dynamic. I don't feel the dynamic between the people so much in this case. This case seems to me more like looking at the nature of enlightenment and the role of enlightenment in practice. This looks like looking at the nature of enlightenment and the role of enlightenment in practice. The other cases seem to be more about the approach to vision.

[43:11]

This is more like already opening the vision out and seeing what it's like and how the vision is used in ongoing practice. All those three stories seem to be very much about proper attitude and posture and relationship, and how you use relationship to check your posture. This one is like, hopefully your posture is now very dynamic and balanced, and now they're going to actually let you look at the issue of enlightenment. And there's different perspectives or emphasis presented here that are pretty subtle.

[44:13]

And the introduction is kind of nice, actually. It kind of captures this dynamism and a perspective on enlightenment and reality. Bodhidharma's highest truth, Emperor Wu's confusion, Vimalakirti's teaching of non-duality, Manjushri's verbal excess. Okay, so we found here Bodhidharma's highest truth and Emperor Wu's confusion, that's case two of this book. Okay? And Vimalakirti's highest teaching, is that case 48? Is that case 48? Case 48? Vimalakirti's teaching of non-duality and Manjushri's verbal excess.

[45:45]

So that's another thing there, those two. And also Manjushri talked too much in the first case too. Is there anyone who has the ability to enter in actively? Okay? So, let's see if you can. So, mihu, mihu is, sometimes as it says, I think, do they say it here to me? Sometimes he's said to be a disciple of Shui Fung. But in this story, it looks like he's a disciple of Guishan. And in the chart that Annie made, he's listed as a disciple, as a successor of Guishan.

[46:54]

Guishan is a teacher of who? Guishan. Huh? Guishan. Guishan. Who? Guishan. What? Say it again. You almost got it. Yangshan. Yangshan. So Guishan is the teacher of Yangshan. Baishan the teacher of Guishan? Is Baishan the teacher of Guishan? Yes. So Guishan's main disciple is Yangshan. that. But he also had a disciple named Mi Hu. So Mi Hu is Yangshan's dharma brother, but not so well known. Okay. So Mi Hu had a monk pass Yangshan. So probably Mi Hu is already teaching, probably, I don't know.

[47:55]

And Yangshan's already teaching. So Mi Hu sends one of his monks over to Ask Yangshan a question. Okay? Who asked my younger brother a question? The question is, in this first translation is, people these days need, do people these days need enlightenment or not? Yes. Yes. The word that you use for need can also be translated as false. So the question may be... The word need could also be translated as false. So you could be saying, do people these days have genuine enlightenment or not?

[48:58]

You could ask it that way. Another way to translate it is, do even persons of the present moment... The thing these days, the character for these days is actually now and times. So now time, because we translate it as these days, you know, in our times. But literally it says now time. present moment. So, you could do it either way. Generally speaking, in our era of history, do people need it anymore? Maybe in the past they needed it, but do we still need it? Do we still need it? Do people today... And the way... Almost the way Dogen seems to take it is... even people of the present moment rely on enlightenment or not.

[50:08]

So one way to read it is, one way to read it is, do people in these times have genuine enlightenment or not? Do we have like enlightened people now? That's one way to read it. That's kind of the way you read it. Another way to read it is, do we still need Do people today still need realization? Another way to put it is, do even people who are of the present moment, do they need it? See the difference? But you need it and rely on it. It feels different. Yeah, you could say it's different. Yes, rely in here. You could say rely, uh-huh. It's almost like enlightened people need enlightenment.

[51:24]

Yeah, it's almost like enlightened people need enlightenment or enlightened people need realization of their enlightenment. It's almost like that too. Part of what's going on here is that some people teach that some teachers taught at that time in history, even before this compilation occurred, Actually, right around this time, the person who made this compilation was the foremost exponent of what's called silent illumination. And then there was another kind of emphasis and practice on studying koans as a gate to realization.

[52:29]

And that school kind of criticized their understanding of silent illumination was that silent illumination was kind of indolent. It's these people kind of like were, had kind of indulged in or sunk into the, into quiet stillness. and that some people said that just preserve stillness, or you could say just don't move, which sounds similar to some things that you hear in Soko Zen. And that school that emphasized sound, which is called Silent Illumination and is sometimes understood to emphasize stillness and silence, that is associated with the Soto school in China.

[53:37]

So, and then sometimes if you ask these people who just say, don't move or just preserve silence or stillness, if you ask them what this preserving is, they would then say something like, Or if you're asking, who is the still one, they would say the still one is the basis or the root. The still one, the unmoving one, is the root. Some would say that. And then they would actually cite this story as support. Okay? What's the support? The support is saying, even someone who is in the present moment of stillness, does such a person need enlightenment or rely on enlightenment?

[54:44]

And then they think that the person is saying, I don't say there's not enlightenment. It's not like there's not enlightenment in stillness. But, and there's two ways, there's a different way to translate this is, but what do you do about falling into the secondary? Or how does it put it here? What can be done about falling into the secondary? But you could also say, but you do fall into the secondary. So what can be done about it? How about falling into it? What can be done about falling into it? But more directly would be... How can it be avoided?

[55:46]

Secondary concept of enlightenment? Well, secondary, to some extent, secondary is the way of thinking that there's a difference between enlightenment and the secondary, or there's a difference between a mind which discriminates, which separates things, and the mind of enlightenment. That the mind is a mind which... and that there's different. That's the secondary. So you could say the secondary, you could also say the secondary consciousness, discriminating consciousness. I guess what strikes me is that me who sent a monk

[56:48]

to ask this question. So my feeling is that, I mean, psychologically, it's like he sent a second. So I think that he responded, falling into the secondary, partly because the monk coming and repeating this question was already falling into the secondary. And then, you know, it's interesting the way the whole story is framed, that he went back and reported it to Miku. who deeply agreed with it, but he didn't. What did he deeply agree with? What did he deeply agree with? Yeah. I think that the monk, by just blindly carrying this question, was already falling into the secondary. Because how could the monk ask a genuine question about enlightenment by repeating something that someone had told him? He didn't make it his own. If the monk, if there was genuine realization of the monk, you don't think he would have been able to do this?

[58:00]

You can. You can do it. That's one of the nice things about him being enlightened, you can do that kind of stuff. Yeah. I think that if you excuse me for saying so, you are doing a nice job of demonstrating the secondary. You're seeing the story this way, is the secondary. Okay? So this is, we see here a beautiful example of the secondary. What you saw in your interpretation and you're telling us, that is the secondary. Because I'm thinking about it? No, because you're seeing that the monk, you saw the monk as a second, right? And you saw him being a second as... not being enlightenment. It was more the way he repeated the question. Well, that too, that he would repeat it that way rather than another way, and to see that that way would be not enlightenment and another way would be, that's the secondary, that view is the secondary.

[59:06]

Okay? Secondary consciousness, okay, could also be called true consciousness, consciousness of two, or... Anything other than one. In other words, dualistic consciousness. Secondary consciousness could also be... So falling into secondary could also be translated as falling into duality. Okay? What is... There's something there with him sending the smug. Pardon? There's something there with him sending this name the smug. Yes. There is something there. What is it? It is the secondary consciousness. Mi hu san is the monk. There's the secondary, right? It's perfectly good secondary, but you see it that way. You actually saw it that way, rather than that just being the secondary. And the way you saw it was the secondary.

[60:08]

I'm seeing it that way. Okay? So my seeing it is secondary. Yeah, but however that monk went, could have been the secondary. The mihu and the monk being two is the secondary. Actually seeing them as two, that's the secondary. Mihu sending him is the secondary. But you did another secondary, is that you saw that the way the monk behaved also was like separate from enlightenment. That's the secondary, that's Roberta manifesting the secondary. Rather than Roberta just happening to point out the secondary was there. But I'm also doing it right now when I'm specifying that you're doing the secondary, that you're manifesting it as the way you might have done it if you'd responded differently to the story and told a different story. That you could have specified the secondary in such a way that you wouldn't have manifested it in the same way.

[61:12]

How can you say that? That's the nice thing about this case is you learn how to do that. Pardon? In this case, you can learn how that, you know, people right now for whom enlightenment is not absent. For whom enlightenment is not absent. He said, I don't say that enlightenment is not here or it's absent. People right now for whom enlightenment is not absent. Do people rely on enlightenment now? Do even people who are completely here rely on enlightenment? I don't say there's not enlightenment. I don't say it doesn't exist. He also doesn't say it does exist.

[62:15]

I don't say it doesn't exist, I just say, what do you do about falling into the secondary? Or, how about when you do fall into the secondary? Or, it does fall into the secondary. In other words, do we rely on it? In other words, how do we use it? I don't say that it's absent. I say, the important thing is, how does it fall into the secondary? How do you work with it when it falls into the secondary? How do we practice? Well, yeah, how do you practice, but how do you practice with enlightenment when it comes into the secondary? This is a special kind of aspect of practice. Yes? It reminds me of a few cases back, the White Rabbit.

[63:17]

It says something in the case of generations of nobility falling temporarily into poverty, and that they're inherently noble, but there seems to be this forgetting of the nobility and falling into poverty first, and then... It goes on to talk about practice. Yeah, very closely related to that, except in this case it's almost like we've fallen into poverty but haven't forgotten. This is like we're falling into poverty and remembering. It's a little bit different. It's very similar, but a little bit different. So this is like, okay, do people these days depend on their family inheritance and their wealth. I don't say you're not rich. I say, what are you going to do about when you're poor? How is it going to be when you're poor? How are you going to do that? So what some people are thinking, actually, I don't know if there really were any people like this, but somebody thought there were people who said,

[64:34]

What's really fundamental is just stillness. And enlightenment is kind of like, just a kind of like artifact of that. Some other people would say what Yangshan is saying, what his teacher is saying, is that enlightenment is not really an artifact of it. It's an artifact of something more basic called being still. Enlightenment is the standard you use, is the standard of how to study in your enlightened state, or how to study in being present. Of course you have to be present. So, That's why to say, do even people who are of the present moment, do even they rely on enlightenment?

[65:46]

Because in the present moment, in a sense, there's no secondary. Because you've dropped past and future. If you draw past in the future, there's no secondary. Even people who are not in the secondary, do they rely on... In other words, in a sense, you're not in the secondary when you're really in the present moment. So then do you need enlightenment? And then he says, it's not that there isn't enlightenment, but just what are you going to do when it does fall into... If you're in the present moment, what are you going to do when you do fall into being concerned with past and future? How are you going to handle that? How are you going to use the non-secondary presence to take yourself into the realm of delusions?

[66:52]

where there's past and future and you're getting, you're trying them out. You're taking that into mind which sees them as separate and holds them. And so one school would be saying, those who like are holding on to the stillness, which is good, and they won't let go of that and fall into the secondary. Others would criticize those who want to get enlightenment and who rely on it and are trying to get it, almost as though they don't have it. They indulge in the other side. So one side is to indulge in stillness and silence. The other side is to indulge in getting realization. So one school is like trying to get realization so that you don't get stuck in holding on to stillness and then use the realization to study the secondary.

[68:08]

The other is not getting into the secondary and holding to the present and not worrying about or depending on realization but to find the middle there you know these two schools which i don't know if there ever really were people in those schools but i think so because it's so easy for people to slip off on one side or the other and maybe in both those schools people in those schools kept slipping off their schools but anyway i think it's easy to slip off and be one side or the other So the koan schools were trying to use koans to get the realization so that they wouldn't get stuck in being still, and the people in stillness were trying to avoid, trying to rely on or get realization, which then says, in some sense, you don't already have it, and you're wasting it, you're waiting around to get it.

[69:14]

But just to wait around to get it in stillness, or wait around and get it in trying to wait around for realization by trying to get realization, both of them are kind of waiting around And in both cases, in fact, it's in some dynamic that you keep awake and alive in this thing. If there were no secondary, there would be no point of enlightenment. I kind of hear, not directly, but in this, is to let people fall into cause and effect or not. Is that...? It's related, but it's more like this. It's more like, do people who are in the present moment, or do we today,

[70:19]

need enlightenment, which then there might be some question about whether those people fall into cause and effect or not. Do we need enlightenment? Do we rely on enlightenment anymore today? Or when we're in the present, is there any cause and effect in the present? No. Are there conditions in the present? Yes. Do we need enlightenment? Yes. Is it here? If we're in the present at those conditions, is that enlightenment? The conditions of the present, that is exactly enlightenment. Do we need it? Do we rely on it? Do we rely on what's happening? No, we are what's happening. And yet, enlightenment is useful to deepen the understanding of what is happening. And one of the ways you deepen your understanding of what is happening is by falling into the secondary.

[71:26]

And how do you fall into the secondary? Talk to somebody. Interact with a teacher. Yes? I'd like to account this case from a different approach. Mehu, that's the first one that Mehu has decided to test. Weishan. Yangshan? Excuse me, Yangshan. So he sent the bomb to test his understanding. And he asked him the question, do people these days have genuine enlightenment or not? It seems to me that The trap that is laid in that question is, are you prepared to say that there are people that are enlightened and there are people that are not enlightened?

[72:33]

Are you going to say something about enlightenment being an attribute of existence, other than existence itself? And Goethe answered, I don't say there is no enlightenment. The text does not attribute enlightenment to a person. It does not attribute it to a type of thinking, concept, an idea. He just says, I don't say there isn't any. But the question is, how do we avoid falling into the secondary? So he's essentially expressing what you've been expressing here tonight by saying the question of the secondary and enlightenment is central to our practice, but skillfully responded without actually saying, yes, there are some enlightened people, but other people are ignorant. Enlightenment exists as an attribute of certain things, but doesn't exist as an attribute of other things. So in that respect, I think that you may have proved the answer as a very skillful response to that type of question.

[73:34]

Yes? Yes? Right? But he did more than avoid that trap. He did more than avoid the trap of saying enlightenment is an attribute of people, or it's an attribute, it's something that people have or don't have. He avoided both of those. But he did more than that. And also, the question, the question is, or the question, how do you avoid falling in the secondary, sounds like Yangshan wants people to avoid falling in the secondary. Okay? And that would put an attribute that would imply that there was an attribute to it, not necessarily that some people have it or didn't, but maybe that it would be nice, but it would be kind of more like, well, I'm not saying anybody has or doesn't have it, but I hope nobody loses it by falling into the secondary. So the question is how to avoid falling into the secondary.

[74:40]

It sounds like Yangshan doesn't want to fall into the secondary, and I don't think Mehu agrees with that. I don't think Guishan agrees with that, their teacher. I don't think it's about not falling into the secondary. I think the question is how about falling into the secondary? What about that? What happens when you do? What happens when there is a secondary? What about discriminating consciousness? When people are in the present, in a way, they don't have discriminating consciousness. So then do they need to rely on enlightenment? He doesn't say, no, they don't. He doesn't say, yes, they do. He's saying... The issue is what happens when they come out of the present? What happens when their mind goes past the future? That's the important thing.

[75:41]

The important thing is that this enlightenment, which is something which we don't have or not have, which isn't absent or present in our presence, The question is, how is it going to be when we go into the realm of duality? What's going to happen then? So, enlightenment is not something we have or don't have, and it's not something that has an attribute or is an attribute. But we don't say it doesn't exist, and we don't say it does exist, and yet we say it's possible. It's possible, but we don't say it exists or doesn't exist. But if it is possible, the most important question is, what about the secondary? Because we've got to get it into the secondary, which isn't it.

[76:46]

This dualistic consciousness isn't enlightenment, but what about dualistic consciousness for enlightenment? And somehow there are some people, nowadays, there are some people in the present moment, or there are some people of the present moment, there are some people who are being themselves right now. We have some people like, let's say, even for those people, the thing for those people, they're all fine, even for those people, what about them entering the secondary? How's it going to be? So there is some encouragement there to take care of being present. Of course, of course, all Buddhists practice. All Buddhists agree you should practice mindfulness.

[77:51]

And by the way, the Chinese word for mindfulness is now mind. Now mind. I mean, you take this character for now that I said was in the text, now and time, take away time and leave the now and put in consciousness. That's the character, put those two together, that's character for mindfulness. It's now mind, or now consciousness. So of course we practice now consciousness. So for those who are practicing mindfulness, I mean fully, who are just playing, mindfulness people who are ultimate, present moment people, for those people who are practicing, do they need enlightenment? Well, that is enlightenment. But do they have it? No. Do they not have it? No. I mean, I shouldn't say no, but they don't lack it or possess it. So what about those people? Do they need it? Well, I don't say no, they don't need it, because that's kind of ridiculous, they don't need it.

[78:54]

It's like saying, do women need to be women? Well, no, I know what to say. I really can't say no, but to say yes is kind of funny too. Do men need to be men? Well, sort of, but not really. I won't say that they... That being a man is absent in being men. I just say, what are they going to do when they get into this man-woman thing? How about that? So a man is just a man. Hey, a woman is just a woman. What's the problem? No, it's fine. But even for such people, what are they going to do when they enter into duality? That's the point. And Guishan avoids those traps you mentioned. He didn't slip into saying some people have it and some people don't.

[79:56]

He didn't slip into saying it is something that has attributes. He didn't say that. Yangshan didn't say that enlightenment was like this or like that. He didn't say some people have it and some people don't. But he didn't do that. But on top of that, he said, the point is, how about duality? How about two consciousness? What about falling into two consciousness? What about plunging into two consciousness? That's the point. And then, if he had just avoided... He could have said, you know, enlightenment... It isn't something that people... He could have said it in a more elegant way, but he could say it. It ain't something you possess or don't possess. I don't say you possess it. I don't say it's lacking, and I don't say you possess it. And I don't say there's anything you can say about it. Me who, I think, would have said, yeah, good, he didn't fall into no trap.

[80:58]

And I think me who would have also saw that the monk, you know, The monk may or may not have fallen into the trap at the beginning, middle, and end of that trip. And me who could have seen that. But me who I think deeply agreed because Yangshan said, this guy who came to visit me, if he fell into the secondary and the way to or from, the question is, how is this person of the present going to be with him How am I going to be with him? And how is he going to be with himself? When he's with himself, how is him being with himself going to be with the secondary? Now, if he wasn't with himself, then he's just in the secondary. Everybody's alive got discriminating consciousness.

[82:02]

But when you're with yourself, in a way, discrimination and discriminating consciousness goes flat. When you're really in the present, it loses its foothold, because past and future hold it up. When you drop past the future, in a sense, that's not discriminating consciousness, that's not the secondary, that's not true consciousness, that's not even one consciousness, it's just life, it's just mindfulness. Now, there could be mindfulness with it, there can be mindfulness with true consciousness, But there can also be mindfulness where two consciousnesses are inoperable, not operating. So we say very kindly, either, so what, or fine, or congratulations, or something like that. But the real issue is, how do you bring that now consciousness into the true consciousness and stay in the now consciousness and not get caught by the true consciousness?

[83:06]

Do we rely on enlightenment? Not yes or no. The question is, how does it come into the consciousness? But we need to work on being now consciousness. We need to be people of the present moment. We need to be people nowadays. So there's people nowadays Just regular old people nowadays. And those are also people of the present moment. We people nowadays need to be people of the present moment. Then, we need to dive into the secondary. Which never stopped. Let's do it. We're talking about Sandokai, though. Yeah, we're talking about Sandokai, right. and also the Hokya Samadhi. We're talking about the merging of difference and unity.

[84:11]

We're also talking about the jewel mirror awareness. Any emptiness of enlightenment. We're talking about the emptiness of enlightenment, and we're talking about the emptiness of the secondary. And we're talking about the emptiness of the present moment, and we're talking about the emptiness of past and future. So you can practice this by working on this present moment. You can work on that. You can just give up past and future. I mean, actually give them up. Renounce them. And when you accomplish this great renunciation, Congratulations. Then, what about coming back? What about falling back in with the rest of them?

[85:12]

The rest of them who haven't yet renounced and the rest of them who have renounced and got back ahead of you, waiting for you to come off your high horse. But you don't have to come back until you leave. If you haven't left, then you've got to do that first. I mean, you've got to. That's your job. All right? You want to do something before you leave? No. Have you left? Yes. Congratulations. Coming back? All the time. So there's this sense that I'm getting that if you leave and then you come back, maybe to help other people leave, and then eventually maybe everybody, and then we'd all have left, and there's going to be no more secondary.

[86:21]

There'd be no more secondary. There wouldn't be any people. There wouldn't be any life. Okay, but you just said that you could, like, be living in the secondary without, like, in the sense of, you know, doing stuff, walking down the street, etc., etc., without having discriminative thinking, per se. Say again what you think. Okay. You just said a moment ago that when you bring the present into the secondary, into discriminative thinking, it goes flat. Yeah. Okay. But you're still walking... eating and breathing and all, but all of these things are still occurring. Right. So, but what I just said, that we could all leave the secondary, and you said there'd be no life, but it seems that we could all be walking and breathing and eating perfectly present, all this stuff would still be going on.

[87:31]

I said the secondary went flat, I didn't say there wasn't a secondary. It just goes flat. Okay, all right, then that's what I meant. that we could all make the secondary go flat. That's right. It could be like that. However, when the next baby came, unless that baby was, you know, unless that baby had previously been bodhisattva evolved to the level that we are at, that baby would come out and the secondary would not be flat anymore. But what if all the bodhisattvas that are hanging out, knowing that this kid's going to come and have the secondary, were ready to, from this kid's birth, bring it to the present moment? I mean, then help them right out of it. Yeah, but the kid's got to develop. In order to develop, the kid's got to develop the secondary, unless the kid's already highly developed. It's got to do that.

[88:32]

Plus, also, we're along beings who haven't been bodhisattvas previously, you know, like who have been, excuse the expression, cockroaches and so on, who are now moving up. I'm going to try on for the first time true consciousness, dualistic consciousness. They're going to try on. For the first time, we're going to let them come up through this training program. Now, when all those came up, there would be no more birth, because nobody would need to take birth anymore to come back and help people, so then it would be the end of life. We would live out our lives, but we wouldn't take birth again, because there would be no need to come back again, which would be fine. Right. That seems like... But there's probably some other solar systems where there are different phases of development, so we go over there. So... This is a really long process.

[89:34]

I mean, in a sense, right? Yeah, but there's no problem anyway. No, no, no, no. But there would be a conclusion of no more life. I would sort of... there would be one of the, you know, no more conscious life at some point. And then what? Then there probably would be conscious life some other place, you know. The whole process would start some other place where some other... Because a good universe, I think, would keep wanting to create life. Do some... But I think you've got to have... You've got to kind of go for this... You've got to kind of fall into the secondary and take it seriously in order to bring certain levels of life up to the level where they check out. But, you know, we're not there yet, so don't worry. We've got plenty to do in the meantime. And heavy-duty stuff between now and... But there is this awesome implication there.

[90:40]

I feel like some lucky cockroach. You are a lucky cockroach. So this case is a little different. So it's like this case is talking about how you work these two together. This of the present with of the past and future. And how you don't get stuck in the present, the stillness of the present, and how you don't like try to... you know, get something, either. How you don't, like, sink into satisfaction with your enlightenment of the present, and also you don't try to get something.

[91:42]

And that, which doesn't lead in any direction, that then is closer to what you want to, like, try to find out, how does that fall into the secondary? Leaning on either side is the secondary. Holding to the primary is the secondary. Trying to get the primary is the secondary. Doing neither, that's enlightenment. But then, if it really is, it goes beyond itself and it checks out the reality of the secondary. That's an introduction to this case, which you can work on in meditation. You can work on that and check it out and then just start with this case. I think I'll talk about it in Sashim, but also I'll start with this case in the fall in two months. So you've got a lot of homework to do.

[92:47]

These stories, a lot of eyes look through these four cases. I can mention the previous 58. A lot of eyes, but different. Yeah, lots of lenses. Chalk works itself, you know. You never have it all. Look at this piece. In this case, it mentions, you know, in this case, that he was named Changmo, a monk named Changmo, very much like Tosu Gisei's commentaries on the cases. It says that in there, he likes Tosu's commentaries. recitations on the old stories. It's in the commentary.

[93:50]

And Tosu's recitations on the old stories are this book called The Empty Valley Collection. So Andy mentioned it to me a while ago. So I wanted to look at this. This is that book where Tosu actually looked at this case in this book. And what he said about the case is in this commentary. You can read about it. Does that make sense? You have an English translation of what he said about this case in the Book of Serenity. Tosu Gise preceded the compiler of the Book of Serenity. by four generations I think. Okay well thank you for your attention and maybe I'll see some of

[94:54]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_80.99