Here's a new altar clock. It's got on it, see there's some dragons. And it's got Garudas. Dragons and Garudas. It's from China. The home of dragons and garudas. Yeah. It's probably... I don't know. Where's it from? I don't know where it's from. Well, it's Chinese style, right? I don't know where it's made. There it is. Case 44. Also, I wanted to mention that... I think it would be a good idea if between the classes, like next week, because there's going to be a session, we're not going to have a class.

[01:11]

And we'll have class the next week, right? Which is what, the first or something? It's the first? No kidding, there'll be a class. on the first. And so I don't know about next week, but then between that class and the first, and there's a class on the 15th, another set of classes are starting. So that's, is it only one week? One week? Wow. Anyway, if people would like to have small groups to get together and discuss the story we're working on, I think that would be a good idea. How many people would like to do that? One person. I'm confused.

[02:14]

Okay, how many people next week would like to, next Monday night, would like to get together in a small group meeting? I'm just asking. During Sashin. One person. During Sashin. During Sashin? No, you can't. Right, that's what I'm saying. The people aren't in Sashin. The people aren't in Sashin. Nobody? A couple of people. One, two, three. How about on the 8th, how many people would like to have a small group meeting to discuss the case? We won't be here, will we? On Tuesday, yeah. On the 8th? Yes, we'll be here. That's the plan of the practice period. Is it Monday? The practice period will be over. Yes, it is. Monday, yes. So people aren't interested in having small groups, huh? Where you get together, like, you come to Green Gulch, or you could even meet someplace else.

[03:28]

And, like, we could choose groups. You know, those who are interested, like, five or six or seven people, maybe seven people, get together and discuss the case. But that's not real attractive for some people. Try again for the eighth. The eighth. How many people would like to meet on the eighth? One, two. Okay, so on the first, on the first, Or even now, if you want to tonight, you could just drop a little note. Come up here. I'll put a piece of paper up here. And just put your name down. And then we'll contact you. We'll make up groups. And we'll help you organize the groups. And then on the first, we can tell you what groups there are. And then the groups can get together at the end of class and decide where they'll meet. Okay? Okay. And then again, after this next class is over, there'll be a break between the end of that class and the next class.

[04:36]

There's two more classes. There's one in April and May, and there's one in July and August. OK? So the next one is five, and the one after that is six. Yeah. Yeah, two more koan sessions this spring and summer. So if you want to, you could keep between the classes, you could get together and have small group meetings to keep study up and also get a chance to express yourself in a smaller group, which give more chance to talk and so on. So some people find that quite helpful. Yes? So maybe some people could meet in the city? Yes, you could meet in the city. That'd probably be... If I see the names, I'll put the city people together so you can meet and now you don't have to come out here.

[05:39]

It looked like there maybe was enough people in the city to make a group. So maybe in the list people should put... Yeah. Okay. Okay. But it looks like there wasn't that much availability and interest for next week. So next week there won't be a class and I guess there won't be small groups. Some people I know have been meditating on this case 45. And some people have written up some things. I appreciate that. Only one person has come to talk to me about it, though. More people came to talk to me about the dragon one. Maybe it's easier, the metaphor. So, shall we read this story?

[06:44]

Let's read the introduction and then the story. Okay. There's some new people. Can you look on if you want to look on with somebody nearby you? Do you have case 46s? 46. No, 45. Read 45. And 46s will be available after class on this table. OK, shall we read this now, the introduction? The clear ground where there is not an inch of grass for 10,000 miles. Oh, sorry. Oh, this one.

[07:51]

The presently forming public case is just based on the immediate present. How convenient. Well, that's it then. Any questions? No? OK, 46. The fundamental family style does not aim beyond the fundamental. That sounds familiar. If you forcibly set up divisions and foolishly expend effort, it's all drawing eyebrows for chaos, putting a handle on a bull. How can you become peaceful? The scripture of perfect enlightenment says,

[08:59]

At all times, do not produce delusive thoughts. Also, don't try to stop and annihilate deluded states of mind. In realms of false conception, don't add knowledge and don't find reality in no knowledge. Gui Feng, classifying this section of the sutra, called it, quote, the deluded mind suddenly attains realization, unquote, and also named it forgetting mind entering awakening. I add the word no to each of the four clauses.

[10:03]

He says that, you know, and if you look in the added sayings, see, he goes, at all times don't produce delusive thoughts, no. Also don't try to annihilate deluded states of mind, no. In the realm of false conception don't apply knowledge, no. Don't find reality in no knowledge, no. These four lines are everywhere considered illnesses. Here, they become medicine. Now, as for what everyone considers illness, is not delusive, is not producing deluded thoughts or

[11:23]

Yeah. Not producing delusive thoughts. Is this not, quotes, burnt, sprouts, ruined seeds? Not annihilating deluded states of mind. Is this not losing your life while taking care of illness? Not applying knowledge, is this not being temporarily absent, like a dead person? Not finding reality, is this not presuming upon the enlightened nature, enshrouding true thusness?" Now, you could read that as these instructions, right? Like, not producing delusive thoughts. That's the first one, right? At all times, do not produce elusive thoughts. Now, is that not burnt sprouts and ruined seeds? Now, you could take that two ways.

[12:33]

What are the two ways you could take it? I mean, at least two ways. What are the two ways to take it? Burnt sprouts and ruined seeds. Henry? two or more ways you get to choose. Which are those two? And then if you choose that one, you can choose the other one. What two ways would you take that? No? Burnt sprouts and ruined seeds, ladies and gentlemen. Anything on that? Sounds bad. Yeah, might be a terrible thing or a great thing. How would it be a terrible thing? What? Overdone. Overdone? It could be the sprout of a delusive plot.

[13:34]

Yes. The sprout of Dorian Shido, too. A burnt sprout could be burning bodhicitta sprouts. Could be burning bodhicitta seeds. It's not the same as, like, spilt milk. That's a good one. Okay, so do you understand? No. Well, one thing that you could understand is that this sutra is saying, the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra is saying, it's giving this instruction, which is an illness, okay?

[14:44]

The sutra is giving you instruction about an illness. It's telling you, don't produce delusive thoughts at all times, okay? What's the illness? The illness would be that you would burn the sprouts of enlightenment. But don't produce delusive thoughts. Pardon? Not to produce delusive thoughts. That's not good. Because elusive thoughts are the illness. No. The delusive thoughts are delusive thoughts. All right? Not producing them would be burning the delusive sprouts. Now, delusive sprouts or delusive thoughts are sprouts or seeds. What are they seeds for? They're seeds for enlightenment. They're not seeds for delusion. They aren't delusion. Delusion is not a seed for delusion. Delusion is only delusion. Right?

[15:45]

Want to keep it simple like that? So not producing delusion is killing the seed of enlightenment. Now, strictly speaking, the seed of enlightenment is not delusion exactly. The seed of enlightenment is wanting to help all beings before yourself. Right? Yes, Melissa? Well, I kind of am confused by the double negatives between them. But what I have is that Well, now, for example, if we told her not to produce that, then she would have to, like, burn that thought. Yes. But what I had was that a thought by itself was just a thought, and any thought at all could be the seed of enlightenment. Any thought at all could be the seed of enlightenment. That's what I... And so that by... by not producing, or by trying to stifle what we imagine to be the rooted thoughts that .

[16:59]

Yeah. That's one way to understand it. So the sutra is telling us, the sutra is, in some sense, telling us, is giving us poison. Is that what you're saying, Melissa? I guess so, but when it keeps, when it, you know, the double negatives are quite confusing. The not producing... It's okay, it's confusing. Dara, don't worry. I'll do it. Because there's just a few alternatives here, and you can, you know, embrace them all. So, I mean, that's one alternative is the sutras giving us poison, the sutras telling us to not produce delusive thoughts, and is that not an illness? Wouldn't that be an illness? What? In conventional thinking, it would be... That's my association to it anyway, that in conventional thinking, that would be considered an illness.

[18:02]

It would be considered an illness in conventional thinking? I think so. To not produce delusives? I would have to accept two by the double negatives, but that's sort of what's happening. Just one negative, don't. Don't. Don't make... Don't do this. Don't do this. That's just one negative. Okay? But they say, don't, they say... Pardon? But then they're saying, don't not produce... Yes, no. Where is he saying... Oh, but wait, that's him. He's saying no to that, but why is he saying no to that? He's saying no to that because that's an illness. Right? Then they say, don't produce deluded thoughts. No. Or how do they say... Or not. Not. Like that. That's what it means. Not. So the sutra says blah, blah, blah. Not. What about that?

[19:06]

The sutra says blah, blah, blah. Not. How can that be? How can we say no to the sutra? Huh? How about that? The sutras, what the sutra says there is illness, right? So you say not or no, and then he says, wouldn't that be like, you know, burning the sprouts? Wouldn't that be like, you know, wasting the seed? Huh? So there's two kinds of seeds. One kind of seed is the seed of enlightenment, which is the bodhicitta, right? This wish to help all beings. That's one kind of seed of enlightenment. The other kind of seed of enlightenment is not exactly the seed of enlightenment. It is like the total content of enlightenment, inseparable from enlightenment, that is diluted thoughts. Okay? Okay? But that doesn't mean you think deluded thoughts are not deluded thoughts.

[20:08]

It doesn't mean like, oh, these aren't deluded thoughts. No, no, that's not confusion. That's just like, just wrong. Don't be confused about that. Deluded thoughts are deluded thoughts. And that's exactly why they're not deluded thoughts. And that's exactly why they're the basis of enlightenment, is that that's what you got. That's what enlightenment's about. It's born of that stuff. It's born in that stuff. It's born out of delusion. So in conventional, it is what people would ordinarily think. Conventionally speaking, people would usually think deluded thoughts are something you should get rid of if you want to be undiluted. Right? In certain conventional spheres. Right? Right. So that's one simple way to deal with this, all right? Sutra says... What does sutra say? Sutra says... And... Also, don't try to stop and annihilate diluted states.

[21:16]

Not. Why not? This is different. Why not? Why not... Why not don't try to stop and annihilate? How about not doing that? What's the problem with that? How is it the same? What's the problem with this don't try to stop diluted states? What's the problem with that? You can't stop and that's one problem. What's another problem? That's, you know, it's not, well, it's a little bit of a problem, but you know, Walter, it's not that big a problem because it's okay to try to do things you can't do. It's okay. What? Yeah, well, the sutra said don't. So what's the, what's, the Puru sutra said don't. So what's the problem with the instruction? Don't try to do that. What, Carol?

[22:30]

Don't try is stopping. Don't try to stop is what? What is that? Delusion itself. Are you saying that to try not to stop it is delusion itself? Yeah. Yeah, that's right. To go around trying to not stop deluded thoughts, that would be delusion itself. I mean, that's delusion. To not try to stop them. To try to stop them is delusion, too. The way out is here. To not produce them, okay, that would be a big mistake. Because that's impossible also. But also, besides being impossible, if you were ever successful, that would be very bad. Okay? Because you wouldn't be able to be a bodhisattva anymore because you'd be like, I don't know where you'd be, but you wouldn't be around sentient beings. So you'd be totally useless as a bodhisattva.

[23:32]

Right? You'd be all alone and plus everybody else would have been eliminated too by that successful not producing of deluded thoughts. Now, how about the other one? Don't try to do that. Don't try to do that. That's an art instruction. That's also a problem if you try not to. In other words, if you sort of like... The first one is, don't produce deluded thoughts. No, not! So then you try to not do that. Not doesn't mean not do that, because then you just do the same thing. This time, however, you don't have the problem of destroying the things. This thing you just straight out, you're activating delusion. Next one, false conception, in the realms of false conception, don't add knowledge.

[24:35]

What does that mean? The realm is a false conception. Don't have knowledge. What does that mean? Go with the delusion. What? Did somebody say go with the delusion? You said that? And what did you say, Carol? Don't pay attention to what I'm saying. Don't pay attention to what I'm saying? Okay. In the realms of false conception, don't add knowledge. What would that mean to add knowledge in a realm of false conception? What would that be? Using knowledge to try to get rid of it. Using knowledge to try to get rid of it? Uh-huh. What else? Learning. Hmm? Learning. Learning. Bringing knowledge into something that could be a step towards learning about your false conception.

[25:36]

What's the matter with learning about false conceptions? No, I'm saying that's good. It's good? Yeah. So are you saying bringing knowledge in would help you learn? I'm saying I'm with the not. Sorry. Oh, I see. Don't add knowledge would not be good because then you wouldn't be able to learn? What are you saying? It says, in the realm of false conception, don't add knowledge. What does that mean? What's the problem with that? Relative kind of knowledge, so would it be sort of like more dualistic stuff that really can't work it out because it's still dualistic type knowledge instead of maybe wisdom, maybe knowledge, or like knowledge, is it different somehow than wisdom? Well, let's just let, maybe we should just stop, let's just, everybody tune in to the realms of false conception now, okay, everybody tune in there.

[26:38]

Everybody tuned in to the realm of false conception? Is everybody tuned in there now? Huh? Huh? Everybody there? Okay, now. Are you okay? Okay, now. Pardon? About the same, but tuned in. You're tuned in to where you're about to say more. Do you want to share, Linda? Or do you want your chair back, Adam? Please. Heaven. Okay, now, what would it mean to add knowledge here? Nonsense. Huh? Nonsense. It would be like... Believing a story. Buying into it. It would be nonsense. It would be like buying into it. Having a true conception to combat it. Having a true conception to combat the false conception. What's a true conception? Well, that's a problem. Okay. Okay. So wait a minute now.

[27:40]

We got the false conception, right? Now they're saying, the sutra says, don't add knowledge there. Which sounds like you guys are saying that adding knowledge would be making it worse. That sounds like what you're saying, right? It's just not better. It's just not better, or some people think it's worse, right? Right. So the sutra is saying, if you take it that way, the sutra is just saying, Don't not make it better, or don't make it worse. Right? That's what the sutra seems to be saying, right? Okay? Everybody got that? Sutra's saying, you got the situation. What's the situation? False conception. Now what does the sutra say? Don't make it worse, right? Doesn't that seem reasonable? Not. Got that? Not. Now is that saying, Zen's saying, make it worse? Huh? What? Don't meddle. Don't meddle.

[28:42]

But the sutra says, in a way, don't meddle, right? The sutra says, well, you got false conception, don't make it worse by adding knowledge. Don't meddle. But this Zen guy says not to that. He says that's a sickness. How could that be a sickness? Doesn't that sound reasonable to... Yes? Well... yes sister moon um because it's uh you might as well go all the way you might as well go for it don't have a false conception just see how far it'll get if that is much knowledge and proof that more protection yes and how do you go so okay ladies and gentlemen we have now here everybody's tuned in the realm of false conception the sutra says don't add knowledge to it which you understand right means don't make it worse right okay that's what the sutra says don't make it worse And somebody says, that means don't meddle. All right? And Susan says, might as well go all the way. But I say, if you got the realm of false conception, what would it be to go all the way? What's really going all the way with that?

[29:46]

Just leaving it at false conception. Yeah, leave it at false conception. Don't even say, don't make it worse. The sutra is saying, don't meddle. But better not even say, don't meddle. Saying, don't meddle, do not meddle. It's saying, don't meddle and don't not meddle. But also, as soon as you say, yeah, not. The way to go all the way with false conception is just flat out go all the way with it as it is. You don't have to then, like, make it worse by saying, don't not do that, or don't do that, or make it into something. You don't have to make it worse. You don't have to make it worse. It's already bad enough. The sutra says, don't make it worse. But you don't have to tell people, don't make it worse. If they just leave it alone, it gets fully bad to the exact proportions of its badness. That's the best situation. So, it's kind of like, you know, excuse me, I'm not one of these Zen people.

[30:51]

I'm not that rude. But this guy is, like, criticizing the sutra. He's saying, the sutra's saying, blah, blah, blah. That's a sickness. Not! Can you believe that? Now, of course, we all know that the sutra on perfection and enlightenment is an apocryphal text. So it's okay. No, you know, when the sutras are not, you're not supposed to, like, swallow that stuff. You're supposed to kind of like say not to the sutra. It's okay. That's part of really respecting the sutras, is to say no. First of all, you come here and you read them. That's enough for starters anyway. You got pushed around by this thing. You did. That was nice of you. Now you can do it back and say not. That's sick. The sutra is proposing sickness. What's the next kind of thing they're doing here?

[31:51]

Don't find reality in no knowledge. Anybody know about that one? They tell you not to do that, right? Doing that, of course, is really sick. But then telling people not to do it is, of course, worse. Well, go right ahead and not do that. But you don't have to not do that. You can just go ahead, because basically, that's where we're at all the time, is we're adding, you know, now, what are we doing? We're adding reality to no knowledge. That's what we're doing all day long. Yeah, we're finding reality. So this is like very helpful poison and sickness for us. Become familiar with this. Now, are you familiar with it? Are you disgusted with it? Don't be disgusted.

[32:52]

Don't be disgusted. Chew it. Chew these different dimensions and subtleties of illness. Different ways that we struggle and get confused about delusion. Kamala? I'm having a little bit of trouble with the use of the word knowledge, because as we've discussed it, at least to me, it implies, like, to know something, to know it with your mind. We're using the word knowledge here. To know it with your mind is different than we've discussed as, like, understanding it. So to know... no knowledge doesn't seem like the same to me as understanding no knowledge.

[33:56]

I don't know if I mean myself. Are you talking about the last one or both of them? Both of them. To find reality in no knowledge? Well, one way to understand that is you could be in situations where you don't know anything, all right? Some of you may or may not have some experience of that. But some people, when they do get in those states, they think that's reality. Can you imagine why they would? Well, because in that sense there's no delusion. It's only the things you know that you're deluded about. The things you don't know, there's no delusion. Temporarily. For example, in the realm of direct experience, direct sensory experience, before it's mediated by concepts, to call that reality is one possibility.

[35:09]

Well, that's not reality any more than our deluded states are reality. No less reality either. There's no possibility for dualistic thinking there because there's no knowledge. And some people get an intuition of that realm or have some kind of version of it through yogic practice. You can get into states that are yogically equivalent to direct experience in the sense that your processes of perception by which you set up duality get so weak that you basically can't quite perceive the other and the self as separate anymore because your yogic processes subdue your processes of discrimination temporarily to call that reality is what some people do that's a mistake it's not reality it's just a certain it's just another state of delusion which is fine just don't call it reality that's all

[36:23]

But this Zen teacher says not after that one, too. I don't know if that clarified your question. It clarified some things. That's one possible meaning of no knowledge, is a state of where your consciousness is blank in terms of subject-object separation, or blank in terms of conceptions. That was... My question was a little bit more about the use of the word knowledge, because I feel like in some ways we've been avoiding using the word to know when we were talking about understanding, like when we're talking about understanding, dependent, co-arising. We say understanding, dependent, co-arising. We don't say knowledge. Yeah, well, we say that you can't know realization as an object. You can't have objective knowledge of realization, because realization can't be out there.

[37:36]

Realization can't be the object of deluded thought. Deluded thought is thoughts which know things, which have objects, and think objects are separate. You can't put realization out there and have that be something that you can recognize, because deluded thought recognizes things. So then we've now become somewhat shy at using the word know in the realm of spiritual realization, right? Right. Which is fine. And that shyness, when it reaches its full potential, so you're so shy that you don't get involved in that anymore, and yet you let your mind work perfectly, as usual, then you realize that there can't be an object of knowledge, and that's called Buddha's knowledge. Knowledge, you know, realizing that enlightenment cannot be the object of perception is called perception of enlightenment, or realizing that truth cannot be perceived is called the perception of truth.

[38:44]

Realizing that the knowledge of the Buddhas is not subject-object is called the knowledge of Buddhas. Understanding that is the knowledge of Buddhas. So, it's good, once you're shy of the word, then, you know, use that shyness to study the situation, and then when you complete that shyness, when you completely, like, what, how do you say, completely understand how you can't know reality, that's called knowledge of reality, or real knowledge. So we get to use these words again after we, you know, completely realize their limitation. Thank you. You're welcome. Paul?

[39:48]

Paul? So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that there is knowledge. Yes, there's two kinds. But knowledge of knowledge is a false conception. Once you give the conception of knowledge, then it becomes delusion. Is that correct so far? I got kind of lost. Let me just say that there is such a thing as objective knowledge, where there's a subject and an object, and the subject knows about the object. There's such knowledge, and this is the knowledge in conjunction with which the self is born. False knowledge and the false conception with passion. False conception, is it false?

[40:49]

Isn't that in and of itself a false conception? Isn't what a false conception? If the knowledge of reality is a delusion, then why wouldn't false conceptions be all in the same category? If you had knowledge of what, again? Of knowledge. Knowledge of knowledge? Yes. I don't know what you mean by knowledge of knowledge. Well, it's the... You gave structure, that knowledge, perceived that you knew about something. Yes. Like what? Automobile. Yes. So you're aware of an automobile, and you know about an automobile, you know something about an automobile, you know a car? Yes. Okay. Is the fact that you are aware of your knowledge a delusion? No. It's not delusion. The delusion part is when we think that the car actually exists separately from us, and that we exist separate from the car.

[42:02]

And then we actually think that that's true, rather than it just seems like I have the perception of you as being separate from me, but I also, if I'm not fooled by that, then my perceptions are not deluded perceptions. They're just illusions that are conjured up by my nervous system. I guess I'm just wondering how you would have the knowledge of knowing what exactly is a false perception. How I would? Well, how we use it. Well, how about you want to know how I know? How do you know? Well, I know because the Bible told me so. Okay, good, thank you. I know by reasoning, I know by studying the processes of perception, and I know by experience of what it's like when I feel free of the belief in the reality of my processes of perception.

[43:05]

And I know about the suffering that results from when I believe in my attribution of reality to my processes of perception. So for me, The knowledge of the Buddha is knowledge which liberates all beings from suffering. So, my ordinary way of perceiving is fine. It actually is just fine. No problem. Except if I actually think that the elements in the process are independently existing. When I do that, I suffer. That's my experience. That's what the Bible says. And that's what reasoning would tell me, too. Okay? When I have some sense of not believing in the independent existence of subject and object, I don't suffer. That's my experience. I know if other people have that experience, they don't suffer. That's my experience. The sutra says that they won't, and it's reasonable that they wouldn't. And that kind of, as that situation, when you actually have some understanding of that, that's now.

[44:14]

That's Buddha's knowledge. And we have that. We all have that. Already. That kind of knowledge. It's our nature to have that knowledge. But, somehow, because of various attachments, that knowledge is inaccessible to us because of some fixed ideas, namely the very ideas that the knowledge is about. Those very ideas that the knowledge is about block the knowledge sometimes, unless you study how that all works. So if you watch how your knowledge of a car works, and watch how the projection of reality onto you and the car work, watch how your belief in the independent existence of you and the car works, see how the suffering arises from that. If you can do that, you start to realize that it's not actually that way. If you can settle with that suffering, you'll start to notice that you and the truck start making inroads on each other.

[45:17]

Pretty soon you notice there's something about you and your truck. And there's something about your truck and you. And pretty soon you realize it's not so much that you're the truck, you don't exactly confuse between you and the truck, that you state two different things, but you start to see how you're completely dependent on each other. And actually if you start melting into each other then you're not so dependent. Our dependent, our dependency Our dependency is very closely related, is very intimate with our autonomy. Autonomous beings are very aware of their dependence on other beings. Enslaved beings think they're independent. Funny, huh? The free autonomous beings are ones who feel interconnected and dependent on everything. Everything, practically. Except those things which basically are not other than yourself, that jump over on your side.

[46:20]

Then you're not enslaved by them. But you are, in a sense, because, you know, you're enslaved by keeping them on your side, then. And make sure they don't get outside yourself. That's what they're part of you. Does that make sense? Sure. Good. Mike? It sounds to me like what's being said here is not it's sort of discussing opposites or action to remove undesirable things, deluded thoughts. It sounds like it's talking about actions to remove undesirable things, right. But what he's saying is not to take action, but rather to just, other than be aware. Yeah. Be aware of deluded thoughts, be aware of misconceptions.

[47:24]

Yeah, I think that's what the Zen commenter is saying about this case. you know, in other words, study this situation, rather than making Buddhism into some kind of like karmic reaction to bad habits. Now, there is a kind of, there is a phase of Buddhism which proposes karma, fight karma, fight fire with fire, you know, fight karma with karma, there is that kind of thing, which is sometimes useful, but He's saying, let's not make Buddhism into fighting fire with fire. Let's make Buddhism into realizing what fire is and becoming free of fire. Okay? Mike? Well, go back to where you were before.

[48:32]

and then we can start over. Because basically I was using what you said at my point of departure, namely, it sounds like what the sutra is saying is, don't do these bad things. Right? In other words, do the karma of not doing those things. Those don't sound like very bad things, in terms of karma. Sound like pretty good things in terms of karma. High quality karma, right? Isn't that pretty high quality karma? Not producing deluded thoughts. Pretty nice, huh? I mean, can you think of much better karma than that? But it still seems to be talking in terms of don't, do, do, don't do that. not doing those bad things.

[49:35]

Do that. Yes? How non-karmic does the commentators know? Pardon? How non-karmic does the commentators know? How non-karmic? Yeah. Should I be the commentator? Should I channel him? Well, I guess... Yeah. Yes. Yes. Okay. Check it out. Well, I mean, isn't it likely that most people are going to get stuck in that nose, too, and find out how they got stuck there? Isn't it likely that... Maybe a string of nose, or it's just one of the nose?

[50:44]

Well, usually, actually... The Buddhist way, you know, in terms of Mahayana, the Buddhist way is not to say no in the first place. That's the usual way in Zen. The usual way is not to say no in the first place. But if people want to know about the reason why we don't say no, it's because the meaning of yes is no. So we don't have to say no. So we don't call this place not Zen Center. Not Zen Center is implied by Zen Center. We don't say Not Zen Center. We understand that, okay? Now you can say, well, no, we don't. So you should call it Not Zen Center. And sometimes you do. And sometimes people sort of do, but then make their problems that too.

[51:47]

No, you don't, you shouldn't. It makes it too complicated to call it not Zen Center. You should just call it Zen Center and then realize what that means is not Zen Center. All right? And therefore go ahead and call it Zen Center, as usual. So deluded thoughts, we don't call them not deluded thoughts. I try to get rid of them. We just call them deluded thoughts. That's enough. Now somebody then comes in and says, okay, since deluded thoughts are not really deluded thoughts, let's call them not deluded thoughts. Or since deluded thoughts are bad, let's try to get rid of them. Those are both a little bit extra. But when somebody's come along and said that, and somebody else comes along and says, uh-oh, no. Yes, and then you're saying, isn't that a problem too? Well, maybe it is. It doesn't matter if it isn't. We still have one more question in this first part to deal with, and that is, what is the medicine? Yes, Grace?

[52:48]

Well, it strikes me that what, or at least what's happening for me in this speech, and I can barely stand the listen thing, is it's kind of... If you think mathematically about Venn diagrams, there's something over here, and then the knot is everything that's not in this circle. Yes. And so he's taking conventional language, delusion, knowledge, conception, in our agreement, and putting it there, and then saying, expand it, because the Venn diagram of knot is everything. Yes. So the whole gets very, very big. Uh-huh. Who's expanding it? Whoever it is, who's ever writing this. I mean, the combination of the commentary and the scripture itself. Well, just a second. You can hardly stand this, but this is the conventional language, right? Right. Now, does that include the sutra saying, don't do this?

[53:51]

Yes. That the don't do it's in the same circle? Yes. Yes. And you think when he says not, it's everything around there? I think it includes the whole thing. But I think also you can say that the scripture includes the whole thing. What he's doing is taking the scripture and putting it in this small category. It doesn't mean the scripture is there. It means that he is pointing with light. He put the scripture in this little circle. Okay. And then what? Okay, so he put the scripture in a little circle, and then he said, let's look at this, first of all, as if it's not a little circle. Then... In any case, the knot knots, you know, the knots of the knot, the knot of the knots gets both this and everything outside of this, or at least that's what it does for me.

[54:59]

Well, okay, and what you did for me when you did that was... He took the sutra like this, right? He quoted this. Well, he didn't actually quote it. Tian Teng Ru Jing. I mean, Tian Teng Hongzhi Tian Teng. The person who compiled this story. He went like this. He quoted the sutra. Now, when he quoted the sutra, somebody might think this happened. And the sutra seems to go like this. The sutra seems to go like this. Deluded thoughts. There's deluded thoughts. And the sutra says, don't deluded thoughts. Now, what happens when the sutra does that? Does the sutra, when it says don't, does it distract you from the circle? Does it? Huh? Well, some people said no, but I think that what the Zen teacher is saying here is, when the sutra said no to this, the sutra distracted you from this circle.

[56:06]

It didn't give you everything around the outside. It said, we want all this stuff out here, so don't do this. But it was kind of a distraction. That's why it's illness. So the Zen teacher says, no, not, and that means stay in this circle. The sutra goes like this, the sutra goes, deluded thoughts, and then it kind of goes, well, I don't know about that, you know, maybe we should get rid of this stuff, or, you know, don't mess with, you know, blah, blah, blah. It kind of like distracts you from just straight out delusion. Then he says, don't do that, he puts you back in the circle, keeps you in the circle. Stay in that circle. There's another way you can say that. If you stay in the circle, then that stuff is implied perfectly. Right. Only people who can stay in the circle of delusion are Buddhists. Deluded people can't stand it. Okay?

[57:12]

But Buddhists can face it and not wiggle from it at all. And that shows that they have great enlightenment. And that makes everybody be willing to be a deluded person. And if deluded people are willing to be deluded people, then deluded people are willing to be what they are, and that's all they can do. But very few people are willing to be what they are. It's so hard, isn't it? You can barely stand it, to say the least. Was there a hand? Paul, yes. I'm sorry. It's really okay. Go ahead. We appreciate it. You're way in the back there. It's good. This whole delusion thing is kind of spinning in my head. The false conception is still bothering me because if this conception is false, that means it's not true, correct?

[58:17]

If it's false, it's not true. Yes. But truth ascertains that there is knowledge involved. I don't follow that step. Something that is true, is it true because it's based on knowledge? No. Of its truth? Not necessarily. The truth that there is that card that we were talking about before, that we could... That's a conventional truth. Okay. That there's a conventional truth that there's a car that, well, last I saw, there was cars in the parking lot. That's conventional truth. All right? What about the truth that the sun's going to come out tomorrow? I mean, is that... I mean, what about the truth that we think it's a high probability the sun's going to come out tomorrow? Sure. Is that what you mean? Yeah. Yeah, that's conventional truth. That's fine. We can all... Everybody's on board with that one? Yeah. Okay, that's conventional truth.

[59:19]

I believe that there's life beyond our planet. Yes, what about that? That's not conventional. The convention has not ruled positively on that one. But it is conventional. it is conventional that you're thinking that there's life on another planet is a thought that you have. That's pretty conventional, right? You can go with that, can't you? Sure, but I'm wondering, does that necessarily have to be true or false? Does what have to be true or false? No. It's just a thought. It's conventional that that's just a thought. Now, some people might try to make it a convention that it was a true thought. The thought that the sun's going to rise tomorrow or the thought that there is a sun, that's not only a thought, now it is conventional truth that that is a thought you have, but also it is conventional truth that that thought can be upheld. We would all agree that the sun exists. Okay, why does it matter if I could exist?

[60:26]

What is the real, is it delusion if I could exist with the invention of this car? But I could still exist just as easily with that thought. I mean, isn't it all different? What I'm talking about is the false, if you give something a falseness, I think that maybe that's almost a, you know, it's like a dependent co-arising thing for the truth. I mean, how can you have something that's true unless you have something that's false? Right. That's right. How can you have something true if you don't have something false? Right. Pardon? You mean the true conceptions and the false conceptions are both delusions? If you think a true conception is something other than a conception, then that would be an error. Now, is that a reality, that you think that's an error?

[61:26]

No, that's also just a relative thing too. That has no reality to it either, other than convention. It just makes sense that conceptions are not really anything but conceptions. They're not really... the thing itself, and we don't even know about the thing itself, but we do have conceptions of them. To think that the conception is something that actually exists, that's a mistake. But me saying that, that's not real or true either. However, understanding that might set me free. But it actually helps me all the more to be free if I don't have to make my understanding into a reality. Yes? You said there's two kinds of knowledge. You talked about one is objective knowledge, where a self arises.

[62:39]

What's the other kind? Other kind of knowledge? Well, the other kind of knowledge is when you understand how objective knowledge arises. and how it's dependent on the processes of perception, and therefore how it doesn't have some substantial reality. That's enlightened knowledge, which we also possess, but which we have trouble appreciating because we attach to this objective knowledge, because we are attached to self. And self and objective knowledge are generally partners So it turns out if you can give up objective knowledge, you can also give up the self. And then you stop projecting the self on everything, so then you're free of suffering. Sounds easy. Well, I don't mean... Yeah, so it sounds easy, but it's not.

[63:42]

It's not easy because we have a powerful habit in one area, and we have a fledgling meditation in the other. So the meditation is fairly simple, but in the face of this powerful establishment of habitual thinking, it can get blown away very easily with a few little words flying in the air. We can act like we've never heard of such a thing as the problems of believing that we are actually right and other people are wrong and that we're separate and they're the bad guys and we're the good guys even when we're talking to someone we totally love usually when they agree with us yes it sounds like this is just another way of saying to be upright yeah that's what it sounds like to me too

[64:48]

It's more instruction on how to be upright even in the midst of the sutra telling you to not be upright. Even in the midst of a Zen teacher telling you to don't pay attention to your sutra when the sutra says move and wiggle and try to fuss with things. Even when the sutra says don't mess with things in a way that's kind of messing with things. Even when somebody says don't and still messes with you Jennifer? There's this part in the introduction that says it's all a drawing of eyebrows for chaos, and when you forcibly set up a division. And then I was reading this calendar last week, and it talked about this story about chaos, who's undifferentiated, like at the center.

[65:51]

And he helped out with these two winds. I think it was Preston and Fox. Did you hear the story? You want to say it louder or you don't want to say it louder? There you go. So chaos is undifferentiated thing, right? This is related then, huh? The undifferentiated thing in the center. Well, except that doesn't make any sense. You can't put undifferentiated thing someplace. Sorry. Just, anyway, that's undifferentiated chaos. And that's similar to the previous case, right? vast openness before there's any writing on it, right? And then there was two winds, did you say?

[66:54]

Two kinds of wind. Fuss and fret. Fuss and fret, these two winds, fuss and fret. They like chaos for some reason? Well, you don't have a hard place. Fuss and fret were, of course, having a hard time, right? And chaos helped fuss and fret, right? So they wanted to do something good for chaos. So they wanted to give chaos sense organs. So they wanted to differentiate chaos. So they drilled holes in chaos. And they killed chaos. So then chaos couldn't help them anymore. There's this nice book called the famished road and starts off something like in the beginning This isn't really what it says, but in the beginning everything was unborn It was like a river But then the river became a road

[68:09]

But because the road was originally a river, it was always hungry. So, in the beginning, you know, there's, you could say, chaos. But then we make, we try to differentiate chaos. But then chaos is, you know, we lose its beneficial... What's happening, Linda? Yeah. Well, a fresher is, in Yiddish, means one who eats a lot. So a fresher goes along with that hungry road. Yes? Does this case have to have the commentary for it to work?

[69:17]

Or what it sounds like, we're saying it only needs something after we get the commentary that tells us that it's poison. But what about if we took it without the commentary? Does it help us that way, please? Yeah, but if we took it out without the commentary, wouldn't we have thought that this Zen teacher was quoting the sutra and recommending that we follow that kind of instruction? And then what would we have done? Except nothing in this book is that straightforward. What would we have done? What would we have done with that instruction of not producing deluded thoughts? If we didn't have the commentary, what would you have done with that? Would you have thought not to do that? It would have become very... Yeah, we would have become a very sick little group here. We would have gone around and tried to... Well, eventually we started eliminating some of the people in the class. So it doesn't matter.

[70:18]

Pardon? It only works with the commentary. No, no. We don't need the commentary. We would eventually realize that there was something sick here, wouldn't we have? Like I said, when we started weeding out, we would have gradually started weeding people out of this class. We would have got rid of the deluded people. People kept being deluded. We would have got rid of them, wouldn't we have? It would have been like the treading on our little train here. We don't have to always agree to the commentary, do we? Of course not. We don't have to agree with the commentary, but this is called... I think what Susan's asking is, did we need the commentary in order to disagree with the quotation? Or could we have lived happily ever after with this quotation? No, I'm not asking that. I'm asking, does the quotation have any validity of its own before it gets made a commentary? Does it? Yeah, and what's the validity? Yes, Carol? It already says no to itself.

[71:20]

The whole commentary, the whole sutra. The sutra says no to itself? No to itself. Ah, good. So we didn't need the commentary. So let's just forget the commentary and realize the sutra said no to itself. We definitely, however, we do need help, because we should not swallow this sutra whole. We have to say no to this sutra. We have to destroy this sutra. That's not because we don't respect the sutra. We don't have to destroy things we don't respect. Right? That's not what we have to destroy. We don't have to destroy what we don't respect. Is this if you see the Buddha kill him? Yeah, something like that. But we don't just kill, you know, see the Buddha kill him is nice, but we don't just kill it just for the sake of killing the Buddha.

[72:28]

We don't just kill the Buddha just because it's Buddha. We kill the Buddha because we respect the Buddha, because we believe in the Buddha. So don't just trash your thoughts just because they're your thoughts. That's not respectful, that's not kind. First of all, you should realize you think your thoughts are true. Then when you realize that you think they're true, then destroy them. But then say no. So here's some perfectly good instruction which destroys itself very nicely. But if we see that, then that's fine. Or if we don't see that and we think these things stand independently, then we have to see the story by which they stand independently. And the story by which they stand independently is the story by which they're in conflict and by which they are caused by other things and depend on other things and have no independent existence. Yes?

[73:34]

I could only remember the sutra when I was having the thought. When I wasn't, it never came up. So, it was like... You mean you were like walking around the Bay Area and you had a deluded thought and the sutra came back to you? But, yeah. I had that same experience, although I didn't notice it. Did anybody else have the experience that the sutra came to your aid when you were having deluded thoughts? Huh? No? The words came to your aid. Well, that's what I mean. The words of the sutra came to your aid when you were having deluded thoughts, when you were off balance? It came to me when I was trying to get rid of my deluded thoughts. Yes.

[75:13]

So what about this medicine? Is that staying within this small circle with whatever lies deluded across the attempts to destroy them? Yeah, that sounds pretty medicinal. Like right now, is there a little circle of illusion here right now that you could work with? So... So does everybody understand what the medicine is?

[77:43]

Yes? Does everybody understand how it applies to the present situation? What about the four medicines? First of all, do you understand how it applies to the present situation? Yeah, do you understand what the medicine is before we deal with the four medicines? What if it came through any mobile scene? Oh, if it's in a mobile scene, then I really get it then, but now I'm not so sure.

[78:49]

It says if you go on investigating further, you'll have to see the words dull and inconspicuous. You'll have to see them or say them? Say them. Do you read the verse out loud? No. So any resumes with this dull and conspicuous business? There's nothing to hold on to. There's nothing to hold on to, so then we'd like to make something dull and inconspicuous, because then we could hold on to that, right? I think that's what I'm afraid of.

[80:02]

Everything seems to cancel out to where there is nothing. Yes, but I still say that it's possible for each of you to be responsible. You have a responsibility even though there's nothing to hold on to. And it's okay if this dullness or boredom or something like that comes up. That's okay. Make it into something that you can get a hold of. It may come up, but still, what is your responsibility? That's the medicine, really. You have a responsibility, each of you, in this kind of like, what do you call it? What's the word? Anyway, in this world, in the world where where things are ungraspable.

[81:08]

Which includes completely conventional world where things are graspable. And you're responsible for that. Okay? But that's not your only responsibility. Your responsibility is to take care of that in such a way that you, what do you call it, you're in the world which we have entered now at this point in the class. at the end of our discussion, to not shirk the responsibility for the world you can't do anything about. And again, the way to fulfill the responsibility for your spiritual world that you can't manipulate is to enter completely into the ordinary world.

[82:23]

Which again, when you enter completely, constellates this ungraspable surround. And not to run away from that responsibility to live there. So it's a responsibility, but it's also, what do you call it? It's also this great resource for your spiritual life. And that resource is not hard.

[83:30]

What's hard is for us to fulfill our responsibility. We'll get rewarded for it, but that's not, you know. We don't have time to think about that, because that will undermine our attention to our responsibility. But I just looked at the clock, and it's past 9 o'clock. So we have to stop. Otherwise, it would be too late. But you can come and talk to me afterwards. Bye.

[84:24]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_82.68