We were studying the verse, Tien Tung's verse last time, on the head and the tail. And the Zen teacher, Ten Thousand Pines, said just before the verse that he used the public cases about Zhu Feng to illustrate this case of Zhu Feng. And again, you know, Zhu Feng was talking to his students and he said that the ancients... What's going on? Just sit down, sit down. I think where I am. It's getting loud.

[01:08]

Zhu Feng said, when the ancients spoke of the head, it was just to let you know it exists. And speaking of the tail, is just to make you use the present to the full. What do they want you to know exists? The head? And how come telling you about the tail is going to encourage you to use the present to the full? I didn't know I had a tail. So is there something good about the head that he wants us to know it exists? What's good about the head? It exists.

[02:10]

It's like knowing you're going to die. It's like knowing that it brings things into a different perspective, what is important and what isn't. The head does? Well, I said it's like the realization of your mortality. It changes your perspective on what's important and what isn't. The head does? Yeah. What does the tail do? enables you to act on this understanding or feeling or whatever it is, in whatever form it comes to you. Do you hear what you said? Do you excuse me? Do I excuse you? If I disagree? Please. Okay, I disagree. I think the tail is what makes you aware of your immortality. and gets things in perspective. The tail's, you know, this stuff that's bugging us.

[03:21]

It's what we're doing. It's what we're doing. And what we're doing is a problem sometimes. But if it's not a problem now, it's going to be a problem later. And if it's not a problem later, it's going to be a problem later. And it's going to be problems in different ways. The head puts things in perspective, but the head doesn't really get us to practice. The head releases us from practice. The head sets us free from the tail when we understand it. But it exists. How does it exist? Razi, get down. Get down, Razi. Get down. Off. Off, Razi. Off. How does the head exist? It pervades everything. Huh? It pervades everything.

[04:25]

It pervades everything. No, that's not how it exists. Yes? It exists as the ultimate, as possibility. It exists as the ultimate? What is possibility? It exists as possibility? No. Possibility is an existence. Doesn't it somehow exist through itself? It exists through itself? No, it doesn't. Nothing exists through itself. This wasn't intended as a kind of like midterm exam, but... But now you know, in case you didn't know before, nothing exists by itself, of itself, in Buddhist teaching. I guess maybe some other teachings are some things that exist of themselves or by themselves, of themselves, by themselves, for themselves, through themselves, on themselves. Well, I said that thinking is thinking, thinking thinks thinking. Thinking thinks thinking, that's right. Yeah, I agree with that.

[05:26]

And one of the things that thinking can think is that something exists of itself. But thinking... Did you say thinking thinks thinking? Thinking doesn't think thinking by itself. it needs other things to be able to think of whatever it thinks. Thinking can't think on its own. Non-thinking can't think on its own. There's nothing that exists on its own. However, possibilities aren't existences, and possibilities, well, who knows? But the head, he wants us to know the head exists. And how does the head exist? The head doesn't exist as pervading everything. That's not how it exists. How does it exist? In relationship to what? To 10,000 things. Yeah, well, not to 10,000 things. To the tail. To one thing at a time. Each one of the 10,000 things has a head. But the head exists.

[06:30]

How does it exist? It exists depending on tails. As you know. Well, don't you sort of know a head needs tails? They don't mean much without them. They're not real heads if they don't have tails. Well, I just, I think that maybe... Seeing... Well, of course, we're dealing with philosophy here. Of course. Remember what philosophy is. What's philosophy? Loving Sophie. Sophia, I mean. Yeah. We're dealing with the love of Sophia. You know who Sophia is, right? I don't know. Well, she's the goddess of wisdom. She's the prajnaparamita. She's the one who knows a clear knowledge of the own being of all dharmas. Remember her? I remember her. I think I've met her before.

[07:30]

So we're practicing love of her. Right. Okay, yes? In this practicing love of her, you can... What was the statement you said? Thinking can also think that it's alone and it's thinking. It can. Right. You said it with one twist that was something like that. Thinking doesn't think it's thinking alone. Sometimes it does. Something like that. It can. That's a delusion, though. But anyway, I think you were trying to make a point, or the point that I got from the words was that, you know, things are all interconnected and all rely on each other. Right. And where is the evidence of this? Where is the evidence? Of what? Where is the evidence of this? Where is the evidence of things being interconnected? Everything that there's evidence of is that kind of thing. And we have no evidence for anything other than that.

[08:32]

Right. Right. Anything else you... I'd love a clearer path to it. Pardon? I said if you're willing to draw a clearer path to it, I can't. That's just... More like... Kind of a blindness. More like Kevin is something that depends on other things, right? That's what I'm asking. Help me to get there if you can. How you depend on other things? You depend on all us, right? You depend on everything in the world, don't you? Mm-hmm. So that's one thing you depend on, right? You also depend on what we call valid designation of Kevin. You can't just be any old Kevin. You've got to be this one. If you're any old Kevin, then you're some other Kevin. But there's more. You also depend on some kind of mental imputation. So there's three kinds of dependent core arising that make up a Kevin. And we have evidence of such a Kevin. You're the kind of Kevin that we've got evidence for.

[09:33]

So in that, what we're calling dependent, like everything is kind of dependent on me and I'm dependent on everything. Right. We make distinctions, right? By calling this form of dependence Kevin and that form of dependence... Yeah, you can't have a thing without making a distinction. But in the end, maybe if we're using this absolute terminology of... of everything being dependent. When you're looking at that realm, can you make distinctions? Yes. Everything depends on distinctions. Without distinction, there aren't any things. But then you're making it an individual, automatically. You're making it individual? You're individualizing it. You're giving forth a package. That's right. A thing is an individual thing. But in order to make individual things, it depends on other things.

[10:38]

So individual things are an illusion. So things are illusions, actually. They don't hold up. If you try to find them, you can never find them because what you're looking for is an individual thing. There aren't any individual things, really, but that's what a thing is. It's something that seems to be all by itself. But there's this illusion by which we create something that seems to be by itself. But when you try to find it, you can't. That's the head. So we're here studying the empty thing. We're here studying the thing and its head. I'm trying to get a place where I can see the head and the tail in this interconnected way, in some way that they differentiate from each other. I feel like you're saying there's some service that each one provides that's different than the other one. Like the tail is the thought process and the head is the... I can't see that point in this dialogue that I see in front of me.

[11:40]

That the tail serves a separate purpose than the head serves. They're connected, but you're grabbing a nuance that they serve something. The tail is what's kind of like the suffering and birth and death. How did we get there? How did that get drawn to that? Because he said he brings up the head because he wants you to know it exists, and he brings up the tail so that you'll make full use of the moment. If you just bring up the head, then people say, oh, okay, fine. Everything's interdependent. I'll just sit back and let it be interdependent, and maybe I'll realize that and be free. But there's also a tail. There's also suffering, birth and death, and that makes us want to use this particular opportunity to realize the head. But also I asked, how does the head exist? But how does the head exist?

[12:44]

The head exists just like a tail. Namely, it depends on things too. And it in particular depends on some particular thing because what the head is is that any particular thing can't be found. You can't actually find suffering you can't find the self. You can't find birth, you can't find death. But that unfindability also exists. But it exists just like, you know, it doesn't exist ultimately, like it doesn't exist all over the place. It exists just in relationship to a particularity. But I don't know if I understand your question. Well, I think you kind of answered my question, but talking about its findability, it seemed, it seemed in our mind to counteract the answer that I received about the head and the tail having their independent qualities, but still both being dependent on all things.

[13:59]

Because in one sense you're saying that it's, all things are kind of completely unfindable or unfathomable. He is? Yeah. So is there a finding, too? Is there... Is there a finding? Is there... See, I guess... Maybe finding would be the head. Usually people think they can find things, but that's because they haven't really looked carefully. So there's that kind of finding, which is called Ignorance. It's called not really being thorough about what you found. Or ignorance. And the funny thing is that this ignorance, which is like being able to find something, being able to find things is exactly the reason why we can't find what's proposed in the next case as our nature.

[15:03]

So the Buddha, who can't find anything, the Buddha, you know, sees things happening, but whenever he really looks to see what's there, he can't find anything. And the one who can't find anything sees that each, all of us, without exception, are completely endowed with the wisdom and virtues of a Buddha. And those of us who can find things, who think they can find things and stop there, because we see things that way, we can't see our nature. We can't believe what we really are and what everything is. It's funny, you know, that being able to find closes our eyes. When we open our eyes and look and can't find anything, then we see who we are. So that's the head, when you see the head. But they also mention the tail so that you'll work at looking at the present situation to the full.

[16:08]

You'll use the present moment to the full. So we're trying here, because of the tail, we come to this class. The head wouldn't really send us to this class. I mean, probably wouldn't, unless we were specifically invited or unless, prior to finding the head, we really took our signing up for this class as a major obligation. But I don't think you necessarily sign up for the class in the first place, unless you just happen to like Zen stories. Okay, yeah. To think of head and tail in terms of universal in particular would miss the point. Not exactly. The head is kind of universal. It's just that it's not all over the place. It's just that the unfindability of all things is with each thing.

[17:08]

But the head isn't sort of the general unfindability, because there isn't a general unfindability. There's only specific unfindabilities. Of each thing that you have evidence for, each one you can't find. Now, I guess if you were looking for some general thing, like all beings or something, you wouldn't be able to find that either. But so, it's universal in the sense that all things have a head. All tales have a head. So he's saying, Jiufeng's saying, I teach, we bring up the head so you'll know it exists. We bring up the tail so you use the moment to the fullest. Did you want to say something, Andy? You mentioned the head wouldn't raise to the class, but if the ancients just wanted to let us know it exists, that wouldn't raise to the class. Say it again? The ancients just wanted to tell us that the head exists, and they're doing that, but it wouldn't raise to the class.

[18:12]

You mean if you heard they were going to tell you something important, you'd come? Yeah. Well, they said the head exists, so I thought I'd show up. To hear about the head? Yeah. Especially if they charged money. But when you hear about the head, it isn't the head that brings you. It's the tail that brings you. What you hear is the tail. You don't hear the head. Whatever you hear is a tail, and there's some tails which, you know, various kinds of spellings of tail. There's T-A-I-L, and then there's T-A-L-E. Both those kind of tails will bring you to the class. Yes? but the head wouldn't necessarily bring you. But now that you're here, we tell you that we want you to know it exists. And we want you to know how it exists. Yes? You mentioned before ignorance, but in relation to the head?

[19:15]

In relationship to the head, right. But I would think more that ignorance would be related to the tail in the sense that... It's related to that too. Okay, but wouldn't you think that arrogance would be more related to the head without the tail, and ignorance to the tail without the head? Say it again? That arrogance, or maybe it's not exactly the right word, but would be more related to the head without the tail, and that it's the understanding of what is being acted, or what would be acted without the action of... I think you might be right because that's the head without the tail, right? Which is you're satisfied but no power, right? Right. Remember that? Satisfied with no power? That's when you have the head and you think, hey, I'm all set. But if you don't have the tail, then you're not working on this present moment, this present tail. Actually, it destroys the reverse.

[20:18]

It says, how about having a tail but no head and that's though full of no power? Having the tail but no head? Yeah, and the response is... What's the other one? After all, it's not precious. So... It still would go with arrogance. After all, it's not precious. Well, understanding without the action is not really worth it. Right. And it's not really understanding either. It's ignorance. But it's... Yeah. It's an incomplete understanding of the head. Right. For example, it would be not understanding how the head exists. That's one way you could misunderstand the head. So I was going to mention that Zhu Feng brought up, I mean, that he, that Wang Sang, the commentator here, brought up Zhu Feng to comment on Zhu Feng. So I just mentioned something that Zhu Feng said.

[21:20]

I didn't mean to get into this again. Susan? Is unfindability ignorance? No. Ignorance is when you find things. But the only reason why you find them is because you don't look carefully. For example, you might think you can find me. If you look more carefully, you won't. You won't find me. You'll find everything that you want to find that I depend on. If you're diligent, you'll find everything that I depend on, none of which are me, but you'll never find me. Just all the things I depend on. We are nothing in addition to all the things we depend on and nothing do we depend on is us. So if you look, you'll find all the things I depend on and never find me. If you look a little bit, you might say, yeah, he's there. And he's a such and such or whatever, you know.

[22:23]

But if you look more carefully, you won't be able to find anybody. Yeah. Were you talking about that in terms of not being aware of the dawn? Is that what you were assuming? I wasn't even thinking of it. Let's see, what does it say? It says, what is the head? Opening the eyes and not being aware of the dawn. Yeah, that's kind of like it, isn't it? You have your eyes open and you're not aware of the dawn. Does that make sense to you? Uh, yeah. Is that an expression of can't find anything? Yeah, otherwise I don't have any idea what this is about, that nothing were at the dawn. And what would the dawn be? Being aware of the dawn would be finding something?

[23:27]

It could be. It could be. Yes. If everything that we find is maybe not so trustworthy, is it a more useful stance to kind of say, come back to a place that, well, this is what I think I see. This is what I think. This is what I think I see. This is what I think I see is fine. This is what I think I see. but you don't have to say, this is what I think I see, and I actually found something. You can say, now let's see if I can find what I think I see. And bring it to class. I thought I saw something, I looked more carefully, I found it, and I brought it to class to show you what I found. And then we can see that you found something. Now, that's a tail that you found.

[24:36]

that's fine now we can talk to you about that though and see if you really found something and and the proposal is that there's a head that there is an unfindability there's a findability too that's a phenomenon That's due to not looking carefully at the situation. But there is an unfindability of each thing, too. And if we look more carefully, we will not be able to find it. In other words, we'll find the unfindability. We'll find the head. We'll see the head. We'll see that we can't find it if we look more and more carefully. In the meantime, whatever you think you've got is fine And then the question is whether you're going to go so far as to say, this actually exists by itself. And if you do that, then you're a prime candidate for a debate.

[25:47]

But I was thinking of looking at the last few lines of the verse, if you're ready. Did you want to say something, Vernon? I was just wondering, is the tail finding the self, and the head finding the not-self? Well, finding the head is finding the not-self. Finding the tail is finding the self. But really, it's like kidding yourself that you found the head, the head, the tail, the self. Well, I don't know, kidding yourself, but deluding yourself. Being not thorough with yourself. Being not intimate with yourself, then you can find a self. But when you're intimate with yourself, Well, you know, there's an adjustment problem there. First of all, there's an adjustment problem of getting intimate, which means you put aside non-intimacy, which is a big change of pace. Then, then there's like getting intimate and then there's adjusting that you don't have a self anymore that you can find.

[26:55]

However, you do have a self that you can't find. Got that still. In other words, you've got a forgotten self or a lost self. Not a killed self, not a destroyed self, just a self you can't find because you look so carefully. You had it there for a second and you looked more carefully and then you didn't. You don't have no self? Pardon? This is, you get to the point where you see that there's no self and then there's a forgotten self? Seeing that there's no self is the same as forgetting the self. Forgetting the self, you could also say, is the forgotten self. However, that also, as it exists, depends on things. What does it depend on? It depends on the former phenomena itself. So even that can't be found. But you can initially... When you look at the self, you can initially realize that you can't find it.

[28:03]

But then if you try to find that, you can't find that either. That's called the head of the head. To study Zen is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be one with others. Okay. Huh? I hope it got taped. You hope it got taped? The little red light was going bup bup bup, so maybe so. Yes. Leaving aside that nothing has ever been found and that no one has ever sought anything, what's missing? Leaving aside that, what's missing? You made this point at the beginning of the last two or three classes.

[29:04]

What's missing? Well, in that story you just told, in that story you told, what's missing is compassion. Is the full realization of compassion missing? Or is compassion missing? Well, in the story you just told, both of them I didn't hear about either one of them. But, you know, I could say you couldn't understand what you just said unless you were based in compassion. So the words you said left out compassion. But I would say, coming at you, your comment again, I would say, if you understood what you just said, then there wouldn't be anything missing because you couldn't understand what you said if you weren't grounded in compassion. And if you understood what you said, although you didn't mention it, great compassion would arise from understanding what you said.

[30:10]

So given what you said, and putting that aside, if you realized that and put it aside, there would be great compassion. Yes. Are not the tail and the head one? Yes, they're inseparable. So the problem is only in finding one or the other, not both. The problem is only in finding one or the other, not both, right. They're inseparable, as I was talking to people today. They're inseparable. They're one thing. They're distinguishable. and they're not identical. You never have one without the other. They're different, a little bit different, at least a little bit different. They're actually one thing, and they're not exactly the same, and they're not two names for the same thing.

[31:18]

It's like they're not like two different names for a cup. There's not a thing in addition to them. What they are when they're together is a thing. The thing they are is, well, what's happening, actually. Yeah? Is the difference in their function and the sameness in their essence? What? Is the difference in their function and the sameness in their essence? The difference in their function? They're different in function. However, their functions are never separate. And their essence, they're the same essence in the sense that they both lack essence. But their difference is not just in the difference in their function. Their difference is also in the difference in their name. You can tell the difference between them. This is the head and the tail, right? Now, he also said... We bring up the head so you know it exists.

[32:22]

In other words, there's something there, and if you could understand it and you could see it, you would be liberated. There's this other thing, however, which should be poking you to practice, called birth and death, or whatever, you know. But if someone has already understood this, then you shouldn't talk about this stuff anymore. So this is a case... that we're bringing up, but it's also a case, although we're bringing up the case, we shouldn't talk about head and tail to anybody who doesn't need it to be discussed. That's what he said. So, if someone has already realized this relationship of the head and the tail, they understand it well, and that's the way they are, then we shouldn't bring up this stuff. But he did bring it up because people have some problems. So he brought it up so they would know it exists.

[33:23]

And then he brought up the tail. They bring up the tail to get you to practice. Yeah, Brian. Are some of the people who are having problems, are they not ready to hear about the head and the tail? Well, I think it's okay. Almost no one has such problems that, well... Most people who are practicing in Zen monasteries can stand to hear about the head. The tail, almost everybody can stand to hear about because the tail is just, you know, be aware of your suffering or other people's suffering or be aware of your lack of thorough understanding. Everybody can hear about that. And some people who haven't heard about the tail and don't pay attention to the tail. Maybe you shouldn't even mention the head to them. But most people in Zen monasteries are willing to admit the tail to some extent. So you can mention the head, but you can't show them too much of the head without the tail.

[34:28]

You have to balance the two. So it is possible to tell people too much about the head, and then they can get out of touch with the tail. So you want to mention both. Tell them about the head so they know it exists. Tell them about the tail so they practice. Tell them about the head so they know it exists, so they don't get too depressed in their practice. But then tell them about the tail so they don't get too elated by the head. You know, get up in the head, right? Keep them down on the ground. So the teacher goes back and forth. But when they understand, you don't have to mention either anymore. Okay? Yes. Yes. There's some piece, part of this quote that we've just kind of gone around that I don't know what to think of, and it says, maybe it's the translation or maybe it's what it says, but it says... It's the only translation we've got. Miles will read it. It says, because you have so many unharmonious things, they have you remove them and obliterate them to make you accomplish realization and fulfillment today. But what is it that they mean to have you remove and obliterate?

[35:31]

That's... Well, let's see. Now, what should we remove and obliterate? Huh? What? Wrong view. Wrong view. That would be good. For example, if you happen to have the wrong view, you should remove it. Yes? Well, that sounds kind of crude. You know, remove and obliterate? Yeah, I know, I know, I know. But, you know, I don't think Chinese people work. The kids didn't have those little handguns that our kids have and stuff like that. So they had these little wooden things, little wooden guns that they used to point at each other and stuff. They didn't have guns even. They had little wooden swords probably, little boys. So when they said remove and obliterate, it didn't mean the same thing it means today. So we can't really say remove and obliterate anymore because people, you know, take it literally. So we have to say kind of like become intimate with.

[36:33]

Which is basically the same thing, you know? But in China, like, these people are kind of like, I don't know, you know, eating this really nice food and looking at the, you know, the mist in the mountains and stuff like that. So they say removing obliterate is kind of like, okay, you know, but now we have to kind of get people to like get intimate with it. And when you become intimate with these wrong views, they're removed. But how do you get people to, you have to bring their, get them to look at the wrong views. I was just checking to see that it wasn't some different form of an admonition. Even the Buddha talks about destroying things, you know. But it's a different culture. For us, destroy means destroy. For them it means kind of like, well, look at it and find out it's not there, you know, and let go of it. Destroy means a different thing now, you know. It's a whole different situation. They didn't, you know, we're like high-tech, we're super high, the highest tech of destroy of all time, right?

[37:40]

We're like the super best destroyers that human beings have ever been, right? We've never been able to destroy each other better than now. In those days, they weren't so good. And in Buddha's time, they were even worse at destroying each other. So they could use that word and it meant something different. It really did. I don't even know if people commit suicide at the time of Buddha. So like when he said, you know, I don't know what, die or something. People go, hmm, what does that mean? Japanese are pretty good at that. Yeah, well, they've got technology, right? They've got this sword, a really sharp sword. So when they said it, after a while there, it really was dangerous. So anyway, I think it is crude to talk that way for us, but I think in those days maybe it just meant they understand, well, you study it. And when you study it, you understand it, and that's what destroys it. destroys wrong view. So you bring your attention to wrong view, and then you study that thoroughly, and then lots of other afflictions and things are studied and they don't come up.

[38:43]

I think that the way that this reads, if you didn't, like, hadn't been using the terminology that we've been using, then it might sound like suppression. Right. And so I think, you know, the... first few decades of Zen practice in America, we were accused of, you know, suppression of certain things, right? And now we found out from experience, we found out, I found out, that if people take literally some of this language in the sutras, in the Zen literature, I find out the practice doesn't work. So now I speak differently, and when I see that stuff I say to people, it doesn't mean destroy. That's not what it means. You can't destroy anything. Nothing can be destroyed, and nothing lasts. That's the middle way.

[39:47]

Things aren't destroyed, so then they say destroy. And also the Buddha, generally speaking, the Buddha spoke in erroneous language to people. He used conventional speech The only time he wasn't speaking conventionally, in other words, in some ways falsely, was when he was criticizing conventional speech. But otherwise he said, you know, you and me and the person and stuff like that, even though he was using that language to show that there isn't any persons and there isn't any things. So, you know, and he thought there isn't. He said, my way is that there isn't destruction. And then he says, destroy it. So it's, that's, that's the, what do you call it, when he says that kind of stuff like destroy, that means interpret what he means. He doesn't mean destroy. He said other places that he, he doesn't, nothing's destroyed. So when he says destroy, it doesn't mean destroy. When he says annihilate, he doesn't mean annihilate. He already said I, my way is not the way of annihilation of anything.

[40:51]

Nothing's annihilated and nothing lasts. Okay? Okay? So whenever you find that language, bring it up and let's interpret it. Because it's not ultimate language. The only ultimate language is the head. Stuff like that. Which is obviously a metaphor for something important, like you can't find anything. But in the meantime, before we can't find anything, we should look at the things we can find and study them thoroughly until we can't find them anymore. Yes? I don't know if that's helpful, but every morning we say, like, emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Yes. And then you say now, well, if people have understood, it's not wise to mention it anymore. But so it's mentioned all the time, right?

[41:52]

Right. I don't understand why it shouldn't be mentioned. Well, it can be mentioned, but it's not mentioned like, you're not like telling some, you're looking at somebody who already knows, you don't tell that person. But if that person, if you're having a little ceremony at your temple and that person walks in, you don't necessarily stop the ceremony because they walked in. But you wouldn't say, come here for a second, I want you to look over here, see what it says there? You wouldn't say that to such a person. Except for a joke, you know. Like Buddha comes in and says, come here, Shakyamuni Buddha, I want to show you. Look, we have your sutra written down right here. We read your sutra. Isn't that neat? Can you imagine if somebody comes to your house and you show them that you have their picture on your wall or something? Do you understand? Yeah. You might do that as a joke. Like I might say to you, Anna, guess what? And you say, what?

[42:53]

And I say, your name's Anna. So I might do that just to play with you, but I wouldn't like... Usually I wouldn't point that out to you. But if you came over to my house when I was talking to people about you, it would be okay for you to hear that. So the Buddha's teaching is form is emptiness, emptiness is form. But you wouldn't tell Buddha that. Unless you find a new way to say it, like Vernon, and want to test it on him. If I'm giving a talk and somebody's visiting, some visiting teacher's there, I can sometimes feel a little embarrassed to be saying things that the person already knows. So I said, why don't you not come to this lecture so I can give this lecture? Because I don't want to be saying something you're, you know. And Csikszentmihalyi used to say that, you know, he used to say that to certain people. Of course they all said, no, I want to come, I want to come, I want to hear it. So in a way it's always fun to hear it again, but the teacher doesn't mean to tell you.

[43:58]

You may want to hear the teacher say the same thing over, but the teacher's not going to tell you because the teacher feels you already understand. And it's a little embarrassed to be repeating in your presence that thing. But bodhisattvas still may attend lectures where they already know very well what's going on. and even ask questions about what they know what's going on, because they think that nobody else is daring to ask, because nobody wants to look like they don't know. Bodhisattva doesn't mind looking like they don't know, so they ask a question that they know, so everybody else can hear the question and they answer. Just like what Judas did. Isn't that the... Say it again? Oh, they don't think they know. They don't go around saying, well, I know. But their teacher tells them that they know and that they don't have to come to lecture. And they think, oh, I do? Oh, great. But I still want to come.

[44:59]

But they don't walk around thinking, oh, I know. I know about form as emptiness and emptiness as form. I know that. They don't think that. Okay? No? No? I thought that if you know this, then you don't have to say it over and over. Right. But if you know it, then you don't have to say it over and over. But the fact that you know something doesn't mean you go around thinking that you know it. Like, for example, do you know that your name's Kathleen? Did you know that? Okay. But you don't have to go around saying, I know my name's Kathleen. Okay. At that time you don't know so well. But when you really know what your name is, you don't have to go around saying it.

[46:01]

So Buddhas, when they really are Buddhas, they don't have to know that they're Buddhas. They could, but they don't have to. And again, Dogen says, Buddhas don't necessarily, sometimes they translate it as don't necessarily, sometimes they say, Buddhas don't think, quotes, it's in quotes, don't think, quotes, I am Buddha, unquote. They don't think that. And Bodhisattva's don't quotes walk around thinking, Don't walk around quotes, thinking quotes. I understand emptiness. I'm the bodhisattva. I help people. Or even, you know, this bodhisattva helps people. Or, you know, this is like help center here. You know, unquote. They don't walk around like that. They go around like looking at people and saying, you know, how can I help? Or they just say what's happening or, you know, they just pay attention.

[47:08]

They don't think, well, here I am. I'm going to help now, or I am helping. They might, but they don't very often, I don't think. Is that because they're not involved in a separate sense of self? Is that because of that? Yeah. That's why. And also it's because they have other things to think about, which is also related to the same thing, that they're always thinking about. They can't remember, you know, they're thinking about everybody else, so that's what they're working on. Because they understand the head Okay? All right? Everybody ready to do the verse now? So the verse, we had this nice thing about this person who can eat others' food and sleep in her own bed.

[48:09]

And clouds spring up and make rain, and dew forms and turns into frost. Get the image? This is kind of like, what kind of person is this that can, what is it, eat hot food with a cool mouth? Do you have a feeling for what kind of person that is that can eat the food with a cool mouth? Unattached. Unattached, yeah. Somebody who can't find the food. This is somebody who eats the food, and while they're eating it, they can't find it. They're meditating while they eat. They're wondering, you know, what is eating? What is food? They're very thorough and intimate with the food. Okay? Is there an animal outside, or what's going on? Do you know what's going on, Diana?

[49:12]

Some animal outside? Yes, probably. I think so, yeah. So, okay, that kind of person and that kind of person we have all these, you know, amazing things happening, right? Is that clear? Liz? Now, these amazing things are happening anyway, right? Right? But somehow they get associated with this unattached person. What do you think of that? Is that fair? Isn't it just that the unattached person is like this other phenomenon? It's just, you know, it's just kind of... Yeah, it's just in tune with this stuff. So, they don't exactly get credit for it, it's just that that stuff happens in concert with them because they're in concert with those things. So it's kind of like, just like us, you know. When we're unattached and we get up in the morning, it's kind of like the sun rises, you know.

[50:19]

Because we're unattached, the sun rises. If the sun rises and sets on us, then we rise and set on the sun. Because it's really kind of a nice deal. And then it says, the jade thread is pushed through the eye of the golden needle. The silk floss unceasingly spits out from the shutter's guts. The shuttle's guts. And it says, you know, in the commentary, this means that suddenly going out and suddenly going in are not yet mastery. You must have the needle threaded through, the stitching fine, the pattern going every which way with the loom threads unstrung. What's that about?

[51:21]

What's this like? What is it? Suddenly going out and suddenly going in, not yet mastery. Is it like the ram being caught in the fence? Well, it could be, but is it just a repeat then of the above line? Is this no new material? Could it mean there needs to be consistency? Could it mean there needs to be consistency? Where does that come from? Consistency in having the head and the tail, not just being there and losing it, but to consistently have that. But what is it about what it says there that leads you to that? It's suddenly going out and suddenly going in.

[52:32]

It's not yet mastering. So I'm picturing the thread slipping out of the needle. You must have the needle threaded through, stitching fine. So in that case, the thread is staying inside to hold the needle. And what's his business about the thread, the embroidered thread unceasingly vomiting from the shuttle's guts? What's that? Continuity. Continuity? Actually, the continuous uninterrupted line is from the on the added things applies to the line we just finished, but it doesn't apply to you.

[53:33]

Right. Does that build me a seamless monument? It's like, build me a seamless monument. Continuous recreation runs through the one shuttle through the nature decade. Yeah. Is it like that? Yeah. Those two go together, the seamless monument and creation, running the loom and shuttle continuously, incorporating every new pattern. Is that the same as the silk floss being vomited out from the guts? Is that just the same thing? It feels different though, doesn't it, a little bit? It's not holding. It's activity, empty activity, activity that's empty of self. Activity that's empty of self?

[54:33]

No agenda, just responding. No agenda, just responding. So we still have this fabric here, this loom and shuttle thing, and now we're talking about no agenda, just responding, selfless activity. Okay, now, then he says, the stone loom stops, the wooden man's road turns, and he said, he said this was originally one line, The last two lines of verse are just one line. And then these days Confucian scholars of literature call this our reply on the other side of the phrase.

[55:42]

I separate the hard and join the different like this so as to meet with Tien Tung. This is what we've been waiting for. To meet Tien Tung, right? What's going on here? What's happening here in these last two lines? It looks like the stone woman's loom stop is coming from within the absolute. The stone woman's loom stop is coming from within the absolute? Okay. And what? and the ceaseless manifestation of Buddha Dharma. Okay, next one. Okay. Begins. All things actualize with the self.

[56:49]

Shadows of the moonlight have reached the center to all things actualize with the self. What about the color of the night turns towards noon? What's that about? How does that relate to what you just said? Did you see a connection here? What did I just say? Yeah. Oh, coming from the absolute. The colors of the night... The night representing absolute. ...turn towards noon. Yeah. From not being able to see, find, to being able to find. From what? From not being able to find to being able to find? Or... From not being able to find to seeing something that can't be found? Seeing something that you can't find? Being able to see something you can't find? The dawn does come in between those two.

[57:53]

Yes. But once you take everything into account, then... It's not enough to be spontaneous. You have to take everything into account. That's the going in and out? It's not enough to be spontaneous. You have to take everything into account. Everything, balloon, thread? When everything is taken into account, its opposite is panic. Its opposite, this stop, everything is always running, then it's always up and still. It's, you need to see all that panic of the world in my voice, but it's not another side to it. When, when all sides are taking it. It's the wall in the back of the wall.

[59:08]

Something that puzzles me is, you know, where are your threads unstrung? You said, you were saying a few sentences ago, you said something about this fabric. But if the loom strings are unstringed, it's like there's nothing solid on which this fabric is hanging. So you're doing all this in and out. There's nothing, what? It's like nothing is hanging together because the loom threads are unstringed. It says suddenly going out and suddenly going in is not yet mastery. Yes. You must have the needle cut through, the stitching fine, the pattern going every which way, with the loom threads unstrung. Just like you're doing all of this activity, but it doesn't make anything solid.

[60:25]

It doesn't make this fabric. It's just how I see it. Yeah, it's good. It's good. So, we've got this fabric in the loom, but the fabric's not connected to the loom. What do you think? There's no fabric. It just says the loom thread's unstruck, like there's no... It's not even, it doesn't say that there's threads there that are to be struck. Like, a loom has to be strung up to go through the... To make a fabric. You can't, there's nothing going on there. So there's all this activity. Yeah, going every which way. The thread's going through the needle carefully and then the threads are going every which way and unstrung. How do you mean they're going every which way?

[61:37]

That's what it said. They're going every which way. That's what it said. But they're two different threads. There's the thread on the loom itself, right? There's the back end thread, and then there's the thread that you go through with. So it sounds like the needle thread is going every which way, but the other thread doesn't even exist. Just the way the loom works, you go in between different layers of thread. So there's... Down on the floor. Handy? Here's another twist to that. The way the sentence is actually written in Chinese is actually backwards from the way that Cleary translated it. What it actually says is, the literal translation is, the thread of the embroidery unceasingly spits out the guts of the loom. It's backwards from actually the way you said it. Yes.

[62:41]

I think the sentence actually says what Andy is saying. That it's threading the fabric unstrung. It's threading the fabric in a... It's not saying that the threads themselves are unstrung. It's saying that the fabric that's coming out is not strung together. The type of fabric it is, is a type of fabric that's not strong. It's an unstrung fabric. It's an unstrung fabric and it's also, it's also, the stitching, the stitching is fine. And, and the loom threads are unstrung. Okay. Stitching's fine. The pattern is going every which way. The pattern is going every which way. The stitch is fine.

[63:44]

And the loom threads unstrung. What is this? What is this? Is this familiar? It's life? It's like life. Is it familiar to you, Sandy? Like finding things in particular, but actually the big picture is rather unstrung. Some people raise their hands and some just blurt out. Yeah. And some people do both. Some people trade off. Sounds like a thread that's beginning less than endless if it's not strong. But I don't know how loom works.

[64:58]

Maybe the metaphor isn't apt. Well, the loom metaphor is very common in this text. And also, loom means... What does loom mean? It means something besides loom. What is it? I forgot. Yes? The vertical ones are called the warp, right? The warp. And the frame you set it on is the loom. And then you work the thread through. This is called the weft. The weft? The weft, is that right? This the weft?

[65:59]

It's the woof or the weft. The woof or the weft, yeah. And this is the warp. Also, the wall has to be strong, right? Because one part is going like that, and then it's going through here, and then it's going this way, and then it's going through here. So if it's not strong... Well, what do you mean by strong? Do you mean that it's fixed at the top and the bottom? Is that what you mean by strong? Yeah. Well, it would be extremely difficult if it wasn't strong. You could do it, but it would be very hard. You'd have to somehow hold it while you went through it. That was one of the great, one of the, huh? You'll be loomless, yeah. People didn't have looms originally. They did some weaving without looms. It took, from the time that they first made the idea of making the warp and passing threads through, they had that for 6,000 years until they thought of a way to not basically, what do you call it, darn

[67:09]

darn thread through. Originally, they would string up the vertical things and then they would run the threads horizontally through, in and out, in and out, to make the pattern. And then after doing that for 6,000 years, they got the idea of having this thing called a heddle, which lifts up some of the threads and you just pass it right through. in one shot. But they had the plumes for 6,000 years before somebody, some unemployed person probably, somebody who didn't have to do anything, thought of just, you stick a thing through that lifts certain threads, and then you just lift them all up at once and then shoot it through. instead of weaving. And, of course, if it's lots of different threads, that would take you a long time, and you'd have to be careful, you know, what you did.

[68:12]

But you just do it one decision and lift it up, shoot it through, and move it up, lift it up, shoot it through. They had some party that night. Yeah. Look what I can do. Look, I can run really fast. Yeah, I live a lot, man. That guy's name was James T. Adler. Can you hear the literal rendering of the Chinese one more time? That's over here. Which passage? The reverse line is, the thread of the embroidery unceasingly spits out the loom's guts. So I'm spending time on this because basically I'd like to see if, you know, I feel like the idea here is that Tien Tung has made some contribution here, maybe. over and above what we learned in the previous part, in the previous discussions, in what way is his verse helping us?

[69:21]

Can you see any practical assistance here, any way that there's something more you're getting out of this than you had before by these images? Yes? What I hear is that we thought the loom was creating the fabric. But the fabric is destroying the loam. When I read the silk floss and seasoning and spits from the shadow's guts, I think along the lines of that we are all already enlightened. Everything is an expression voted down, and it never stops, whether we know it or not. And is that sort of just misled thinking? it's not misled thinking necessarily it sounds like you just quoted a scripture that's no problem but what's it got to do with what's it got to do with these images I don't necessarily see that the silk floss comes out whether it's just coming out whether you want it to or not well you know it isn't

[70:37]

It's coming out whether you want it to or not, or whether you know it is or not. Unceasingly. Okay, yes? Well, my response to this is the same as it was last week, is that his verse is taking it beyond the dualism, the danger of the dualism of head and tail. That it's more... First of all, he's emptying it. He's emptying it. There's no emphasizing that it's empty. And then the way in which he weaves the last two lines, you know, stopping and starting, turning and settling, gives me a sense of the process more than the case itself. He's moving me around by looking at the struggling and the suffering.

[71:46]

So I keep turning like that, which is what I appreciate in these cases, is being turned constantly from settling in one position to another. And this verse does that more clearly. Okay, it seems like what he's saying maybe is that there's the potential or the ability for everybody to have this understanding and that it's not enough to get the glimpses of it that you can get, but that you have to be able to have a complete understanding, including making fine stitches or whatever fine tuning you need to do but that you can't attach yourself to that and assume that being able to take those turns and make those stitches is the understanding that you need to be able to do that without even having the loom like because there's this underlying transience that will always make things change i think that that's kind of

[72:58]

what the following sentence is a reference to is that changeability, that even though, you know, night turns into day, there's still greater shadows that are being formed by that, and so things are changing, but they're still the same, and you need to kind of fit your understanding to still be tight with nothing to hold on to. If that made any sense. I read it as the fine stitching is our practice, it's the tail. The unstrung loom is, you just can't find anything behind the head. Similar to what makes it. Yes.

[74:01]

It feels to me as though nothing is going to go anywhere, nothing goes anywhere, but still, I must be sincere. And I notice I'm so funny resistance in me to getting, I'm attracted and repulsed by the idea of the silk doing the loom rather than the loom doing the silk. or the spider, is the spider spinning the web or is the web spinning the spider? And I feel a certain fear of actually getting that. I don't understand what that is, but there's something I can feel between me and getting that. What's both, isn't it? The spider spins the web and the web spins the spider? Mm-hmm. Is what she said what you said?

[75:02]

Uh, I don't know. I don't, I don't, I think, no. What's the difference? Did you hear what she said? Well, I think Well, you're saying there's no real connection to something. There's no, like, something out there that it's all holding on to, right? This is unstrung fabric, right? It's not hooked on to anything. I mean, things aren't hooked on to findability or substance, right? We have to be sincere. Isn't that what you're saying? I don't know if it's necessarily sincerity other than, like, what is just... Doing a fine stitch is pretty sincere. So is the needle going all the way. But it, yeah, then, yeah. Okay. Sincere also means, you know, it sort of means concentrated. The Confucian word for sincere is also often translated as concentrated.

[76:12]

If you, you know, like when you sew these robes and you make these little stitches, you know, some people make these stitches in such a way that each stitch is the same, or almost exactly the same. And not only that, but it's not even, well, sometimes it's not even their idea. They're just doing the traditional stitch. It's not the stitch that they would like to do. They're just doing the stitch they were taught. But even some people who are doing their own style stitches, but they're all the same, there's a sincerity there. So that's good. But we also have to remember that this is a field beyond the stitch, right? We wear this thing. This is a field of merit, this robe. It's a field of sincerity. It's a field of blessing, right? But it has no characteristics.

[77:14]

So that's... We think usually, you know, that if it has... If it's sincere, then it's sincere because of the stitches being a certain way or people made effort to make it. There's the field of effort and merit and blessing, blessing of the one who makes it. Blessing to all beings in the process of making. But there's no characteristics to this either. It has no sign, no mark. This fabric here. Can I say one more thing? Yes. The experience over all these months of coming to his class is very... Bless you like this for me. And many, if not most, a lot of the time, it does not hang. There's a quality of, I get unstrung here.

[78:22]

And yet, the attention that I bring and the sincerity that I bring to this experience is very concentrated and very sincere. But I often feel the best moments... I don't know what I'm saying exactly, but times when you will open the window and we just hear the frogs. I mean, that's a very personal thing to say, but that's... When you hear the frogs, are things strong again? No? But, I like it. You like it? I mean, there's, well, maybe the things are strong. I feel at peace. I don't, I'm not still fussing over anything. Pardon? I'm not fussing.

[79:24]

You're generally speaking not fussing? No, when I, when I'm at that moment. I don't know, something happens and I, it just, everything gets, goes quiet. Mm-hmm. And sometimes it's not quiet? You're trying to get strong again? And you're sincere about trying to get strong? You're sincere about trying to get strong? And you're sincere when you give up trying to be strong? And I sincerely opened the window. Each of us had our own style of sincerity. Thank God. It's okay now. Do some other people sometimes feel unstrung in here?

[80:37]

You mean people in here or in this class, these people? I meant some of you people here tonight, like, for example, you, Kevin. Do you sometimes feel unstrung, like Elenia said? Restrung. And restrung? Do you feel sincere when you're in this class? I was happy in the same way she was going when I asked my question that maybe was too general. And I said, do you think people are ready to hear about the head and the tail? So I'll say, do you think people are ready to be enthroned in this way? Or do you think not just people at Zen monasteries in general, do you think people are in this career more? I mean, do you think we're ready to be enthroned like that? I asked you, do you feel unstrung? And if you say yes, then if you ask me, do I feel that people are ready to feel unstrung the way they have been feeling?

[81:45]

I would say yes. But it's a risk. But I figure, you know, an hour and a half a week, we can do it. We have to create the case. Yeah. Well, usually, I think, I would guess, and it's not a guess, and you can tell if I'm wrong, but my feeling is that when people are reading the case outside the class, it's more like they think they understand it, which is kind of like, that's not, that's strong, or they have trouble with it. If you're having trouble with it, I don't think you're unstrung. I think people usually have trouble with the case when you're studying, don't you? Yeah. But in the class what happens sometimes is you don't really have trouble with it anymore sometimes. Sometimes you can't even have trouble with it. Isn't that what happens sometimes? Some people have trouble, but then you get to a place where you don't have trouble anymore. You don't even... Because you're unstrung.

[82:45]

That's what I feel happens to some people. Does it happen to you? Yeah, to me it happens quite a bit. And then I have various feelings... in that unstrung condition. Sometimes there's, I don't know why, but I feel really, really clear in that unstrung space. And sometimes I feel, I sometimes I think, can we be patient with this? Can we live without our usual grip But, you know, partly, you know, I want to get a grip on these last two lines, and partly I don't.

[83:47]

Partly I want to get intimate with them. I want to get more intimate with them so I can let go, but not let go like, like, like, I want to let go through intimacy with these last two lines. That's why I wanted to discuss them with you tonight. And I think we could spend a few more weeks on these last two lines. But, on the other hand, I think it might be okay to go on to the next case. What do you think? Should we go on to the next case or should we spend a couple more weeks on these last two lines? Okay, well, if you don't have any strong opinion, I would say next case. I think you'll find the next case is very closely connected to this case. Maybe there's an attachment to this case because a couple times ago when we each were trying to put ourselves forth with this case, there was a real intimacy that, you know, I mean, I'll move on, but

[85:03]

I think sometimes you know during the week following a class for me anyway some things take a little while to percolate you know and then So I would appreciate a few minutes anyway to revisit or to just kind of clear up whatever's left over from it next week. You know, just like 20 minutes or so. Yeah. Well, thank you. Thank you for your sincerity.

[85:55]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_81.11