I don't like to go through the commentaries on these cases, but in this particular case, the commentary is actually a series of texts. Actually, I think we have counted quite a few texts, like about 15 texts. that are cited, quoted in this chapter, in this case. And so maybe we, you know, we've been studying this case for a long time, but maybe we could now look at it in a literal sense. Seventy-four.

[01:01]

Seventy-four still, right? Seventy-four, yeah. The introduction says, Plenty has myriad virtues. It's swept clear there's not a mote of dust. detached from all forms, identical to all things, colon, taking a step atop a hundred-foot pole, the universe in all directions is one's whole body. But tell me, where does it come from? So, in a sense, this is a part of what this case is about, is where does it come from? It's a word of... It's a where does it come from plus also what is it like when it comes discussion.

[02:07]

Where does it come from and how does it come and what is it when it's coming and what are you going to do about it? So, a monk asked Faya, and I hear in the teaching there is a statement that from a non-abiding basis are established all things. And the monk then says, what is the non-abiding basis? And Pa Yen said, form arises before substantiation. Names arise before naming.

[03:12]

Okay, so it looks like, you know, until further scholastic research says otherwise, it looks like the monk, the scripture that the monk's referring to is what? Yeah, it looks like, he says, I hear that in the teachings, there's a saying, and the saying looks like it comes from the Vimalakirti Sutra. And I actually looked in the Vimalakirti Sutra, but I couldn't find this particular thing. Did anybody look it up and find it? You found part of this discussion? Did you find the discussion between Vimalakirti and Manjushri in the sutra?

[04:27]

Yeah. Did you get it? If it's not, you know, if you can get it, can you get it fast? Yeah. Might be nice to see where in the sutra this is so you can read in the sutra. Did you find it also, Stuart? Yeah. I'm sorry, I don't have the book with me. Did you look it up and find it? I didn't look it up. Yeah, I looked it up. I had trouble finding it. And there's a few places in the sutra, not too many, where Vimalakirti is talking to Manjushri. So I thought I could find it easily, but I didn't find it easily. So if Barbara found it, that would be nice. So Vimalakirti and Manjushri are talking, and in the midst of that dialogue there is this statement, all things are established from a non-abiding basis. And that's the end of the quotation from the sutra. Okay? So the monk's referring to that.

[05:29]

So this is a case where a monk's going to a Zen master and bringing up a case. And the monk's quoting a sutra to the teacher and says, the sutra says, all things are established on a non-abiding basis. What's this non-abiding? And then the Zen teacher, it looks like he then quotes something else. which you find in the top of page 313. Kalyan's answer comes from the dual treasury treatise. Form arises before substantiation. Names arise before naming. Once forms and names have appeared, floating mists disturb clarity. OK? So, again, this story is being transmitted to us and in one sense you might think that what we're being asked to do is to imagine

[06:38]

that the Zen master is talking to his student, the student's bringing up the Vimalakirti Sutra and then asking a question about it, and the Zen teacher is quoting another scripture or another treatise in response, which seems quite apropos, because, you know, it seems apropos, but... Perhaps the most unfathomable thing about this is, you know, what's happening there? And he asked that question and Ewing has that answer. But that's actually what we've been talking about all along, and we've gotten nowhere. So the people who weren't here for the last class missed the most important point, namely that we have made no progress on this case. You should understand that. Congratulations.

[07:41]

Yeah, well, you're a big contributor. Thank you. He came to class even when he was crippled and made his contribution to actually no gain. But now this class is a little different because we're going to study this stuff and it's going to perhaps look like some game. I'm not going to try to penetrate what the case is about right now. This is what we were doing before. We didn't look at the commentary at all, really, did we? So here's this nice little thinking of sutra. Did you find it? One that I saw was the other translation that we have, but I think I found... Likely story. Yeah, sure. It's in the middle of this course. When you think you've found it, I'd like to see it. So this translation, which is from Chinese, and the one that Barbara has now is from Tibetan, so...

[08:51]

It probably won't be exactly the same, but this translation, Vimalakirti and Manjushri are talking about, you know, talking about sickness, right, in the body. So he said, what is the basis of the body? And Vimalakirti said, craving is the basis of the body. What is the basis of craving? False discrimination is the basis of... May I see it? Thank you. So it starts right here. Okay, great. So in this translation by Robert Thurman, page 41, let's just read it here. Bhimala Manjushri asked, Noble Sir, how should a sick bodhisattva control his mind? Vimalakirti replied, Manjushri, a sick bodhisattva, should control her mind, her own mind, with the following consideration. Sickness arises from total involvement in the process of misunderstanding from beginningless time.

[09:58]

Okay, blah, blah, blah. And then, I'm looking for the part about the body. The body is the issue of the four elements. Yeah, I found this part. What I'm looking for is a place where Manjushri asks Vimala Kirti, what is the basis of the body? I didn't see that in here. Did you? That question, what is the basis of the body and the basis the body is craving. Now this sounds very similar to what? Twelve-fold chain of causation. Twelve-fold chain of causation is... Depending on ignorance, karmic formations arise.

[10:58]

Depending on karmic formation, consciousness arises. Depending on consciousness, psychophysical elements or psychophysical personality arises. Depending on psychophysical personality, the sense capacities arise. Depending on the sense capacities, contact arises. Depending on contact, feeling arises. Depending on feeling, craving arises. Depending on craving, clinging arises. Depending on clinging, becoming arises. Depending on becoming, the body arises. birth, birth of a body. So this is a shorthand for me now. What does the body arise from? It arises from craving. What does craving arise from? False discrimination. What is the basis of false discrimination?

[12:06]

Erroneous conceptions are the basis of false discrimination. What is the basis of erroneous conceptions? A non-abiding basis. What is the basis of non-abiding? Non-abiding has no basis. Manjushri, all things are established on a non-abiding basis. A non-abiding basis which has no basis. The source? The first teaching of the Buddha? No, no, not the first. Anyway, one of the teachings is called the Katayana Gota Sutta by the author Shakyamuni Buddha. teaching the middle way about how things exist, avoiding the extreme that things exist, really exist, that don't exist at all.

[13:19]

I teach the middle. The middle way is, depending on ignorance, karmic formations. So you could make a parallel between this story, this interaction here, and the Buddha's teaching of the pinnacle arising by equating the arising of the body based on craving, and then what other things would you pair up here? Okay, that's a good stall. How would you pair... Pardon? Okay, good. I'm sorry I didn't hear it.

[14:21]

How would you pair up this conversation with the twelvefold chain of causation? I already, of course, I suggest putting body with birth. How would you tie the other things in this conversation to those twelve links? Actually, I just went up to ten, but you don't need the next two. Well, I would just suggest, what? Grasping is craving. Grasping is craving? Well, how about craving is craving? How about craving being craving? Would that be reasonable? False discrimination, ignorance. Pardon? False discrimination, ignorance. I would suggest that false discrimination be consciousness, and that erroneous conceptions be ignorance.

[15:25]

And they skip karmic formations. and they skip psychophysical personality. This is an abbreviated version of the Buddha's teaching of dependent core rising. You have four elements. erroneous conception, ignorance, false discrimination, consciousness, skipping the second link, and then jumping over to craving, which is number six, and then jumping over clinging to and becoming to birth. So you have four links in this story rather than or ten, actually, because the question is if we correspond body to birth, because it's the birth of a body, actually, we're talking about here. Now, Vimalakirti could have, you know, filled in each one of the steps, but he just started with ignorance, and then he jumped one, and then he jumped three, and then he jumped two.

[16:37]

But he could have said each one of them, but... He was Chinese layman, so he didn't know very much about Buddhism. So he just did his main features here. Yeah. Where does this non-abiding go then? Where does it go? Yeah, where do you pile on the back? Kind of in the triple chain? Yeah, where does it go? That's what we're studying here, right? Yeah. What's non-abiding, right? He just gave us another quote. What's non-abiding? Death. Huh? Death. Death? Well, there might be something between death and erroneous conception, which isn't mentioned in the 12-fold.

[17:38]

Pardon? Emptiness? Well, do you think non-abiding in this case, in this story, is emptiness? Is that what you're thinking, maybe? Pardon? It sounds more like impermanence in a way, doesn't it? But it's not really impermanence. It's not impermanence, it's impermanent phenomena. It's phenomena that are impermanent, it's not impermanence. that is the non-abiding basis. It is phenomena that are impermanent that are the non-abiding basis. See the difference? Impermanence is a quality of the non-abiding basis. That's true. But if impermanence was the non-abiding basis, then what would that be? If impermanence was the non-abiding basis, then what would follow from that? Impermanence would go away. What? Impermanence would go away. How would it go away? Because it couldn't abide.

[18:42]

Yeah, well, the impermanence goes away, yeah. But if, what would follow besides impermanence being impermanent too, what might follow besides impermanence being impermanence? What, from, from, from, hmm? I said permanence. Impermanence. Permanence. Now, what's permanence? When we divide. Yeah, right, but in our context here this evening, what is permanence? Ignorance. It's ignorance. It's a false conception. So based on impermanence, if impermanence is what you're working with, then ignorance wouldn't fall in front of it. But if you have impermanence, but you see permanence, then you have erroneous conception. So there's something about the birth of phenomena that's missed.

[19:48]

Something about in the birth of these phenomena, all things are arising on a non-abiding basis. Now, you heard about that, right? You've heard about that, right, Yvonne? So then things are... But now, then what happens when these things arise from this non-abiding basis? What happens? Halyan didn't say. He didn't quote the whole story. What happens when these things arrive from the non-abiding basis? Fade away. Now the clarity is disturbed. So things arise from a non-abiding basis, and they also then are non-abiding things arising from non-abiding forms, and names arise from a non-abiding basis, right? And they also are non-abiding, but they're not the non-abiding basis. they are non-abiding. And you could use them, I guess, as a non-abiding basis if you wanted to. We're talking about even things like names and forms arise from a non-abiding basis.

[20:55]

But when they arise, something happens. Mists arise and clarity is obscured. So you see, ladies and gentlemen, it's not your fault that you're ignorant. Because when things arise from this non-embodied basis, you get confused. Things get obscured. That's why it's hard to have an errorless conception in this messy situation of the birth of things. So part of what I see in this story is not only the story of how things happen, but how difficult it is to attend to them with science rather than nescience. Do you understand? Nescience means no science. Right? Isn't that what it means? Ne means no, science means science, right?

[21:57]

Science means knowledge. So, when things arise, they cause, they disturb clarity, and in that disturbed clarity, it's hard to have awareness, science, knowledge so the you know the intelligence so the sanskrit word for ignorance is ah vidya vidya means intelligence or like not clear knowledge so in this situation there's ignorance now with this ignorance we have erroneous conceptions and so on leading up to a body, and then coming after the body is old age, sickness, and death. I don't understand why it just doesn't keep going. What doesn't keep going? Well, that clarity is disturbed.

[23:00]

Yes? Clarity is in the mist. Clarity is in the mist? It's all misty? It's misty clarity? The truth is that whatever is happening is that there is clarity somewhere and the mists are in the way. Oh, you heard that there's clarity somewhere? There is clarity somewhere, some moment. There's clarity sometimes, sometimes? Yes. Yes? So, when clarity is disturbed, is that also a moment of... If you say clarity is disturbed or can't be seen or isn't, then it's only because that state, it's not that there isn't clarity. According to Buddhism, it's not that there isn't clarity and then not that there is clarity. Right? But if there is clarity, if the clarity is appearing, not getting into that there is clarity, but if clarity appears, the appearance of clarity is disturbed by these things which arise on this non...

[24:16]

by any basis. So if clarity is disturbed, and then you said something about why doesn't it just keep going? Then you would go, like you were doing the four, like, then what? Clarity means, you know, clarity is disturbed, then that means clarity. Clarity will come. You're saying that because clarity is disturbed, clarity will come? Yeah, then there's clarity. How? How is disturbing clarity? Then there's clarity. In many ways, sometimes by penetrating the disturbed clarity, by being with it. Oh, so if you have penetration of the unclarity, then there could be another clarity? Yes. Right. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes? I'm passive. Great. It starts with, what is the root of materiality?

[25:22]

Where is it? The dialogue on the left. What is the root of materiality? What is the root of good and evil? What is the root of materiality? Desire is the root of materiality. What is the root of desire and attachment? Unreal construction is the root of desire. What is the root of unreal construction? False concept is the root. What is the root of false concept? Baselessness. What is the root of baselessness? Manjushri, when something is baseless, how can it have a root? Therefore all things stand on the root which is baseless. Thank you very much. This is page 58 of the holy teachings of the molecule. Smashing, don't you think? That, by the way, that sutra is reserved.

[26:34]

You can imagine what it would be like if it wasn't reserved. OK, now I believe, I think maybe, that the Big Mala Kirti Sutra was written in Chinese, not translated. That's what I think. And I think the Tibetan is a translation from the Chinese. Nobody's ever found a Sanskrit text, and it doesn't sound like Indian Buddhism to me, to have a layperson being this smashing. Yes? If there's no physics... If there's no physics and no science... Couldn't we also say there's really no metaphysics?

[27:42]

I mean, if there's no basis, is there also no cause? Can you say there is no cause, no creator? No. No, it's not the same. That the non-abiding basis doesn't have a basis doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause. Yes, well, the non-abiding basis is not there is no physics. I'm thinking, maybe I'm wrong there too, because I'm purposely saying there is no physics so that I can then say there is no metaphysics. because it just sounds good instead of meta-science. But the search for a cause is also, I'm asking, just as inappropriate as the search for an abiding basis, or a creator, whatever.

[28:46]

I'm asking this. Well, a search for a cause, I think, would be like searching for a basis. But searching for a condition wouldn't have to be the same as searching for a cause. Cause is something that has the power within it to make something happen. But a condition is something which something can't happen without. A condition is like a phone. A form, a feeling, any kind of phenomenon could be a condition. Matter of fact, every phenomenon is a condition. But a condition is a little bit different from a cause. Cause is something that has the power within it to make something happen. Whereas a condition is something that's necessary for something to happen. So we don't necessarily say being a woman is the cause of being a mother. But it's a human mother. But you have to be a woman. But it's a condition for being a mother. It's not really, so we don't necessarily say then that being a woman is the basis of being a mother.

[29:48]

Being a woman may be part of the non-abiding basis for the arising of motherhood, but there's other conditions which are part of the non-abiding basis for the arising of being a mother. But once the mother phenomenon arises, then there's a temporary loss of clarity. Right, moms? So anyway, I just brought up this thing about Vimalakirti being written in Chinese, and I think I know who wrote it. I mean, know who wrote it means I have a theory about who wrote it. I think it was written by a wonderful genius named Kumar Jeeva, who was a Central Asian Buddhist layperson, of all things. Get this, get this. He was a super smart layperson. What? Wasn't he an Indian guy? No, he's Central Asian. But he went to Gandhara and studied Abhidharma. He was an Abhidharma expert. And then he became, you know, really knowledgeable about Mahayana philosophy.

[30:55]

And then he got kidnapped by the Chinese emperor. because he was famous in Central Asia as this great scholar. But he wasn't a monk. He was a lay person. But he was like the most renowned Buddhist scholar within the reach of the Chinese Empire. There's probably some good people in China about that. They didn't kidnap any Chinese masters. They kidnapped Kumar Jeeva and they brought him to China for quite a while and they were treated nicely. He was a layperson and they gave him a large entourage of lovely Chinese ladies. So he learned Chinese. He knew Sanskrit, he knew Central Asian languages, and then he learned Chinese. And then he started translating the Buddhist scriptures. And they had, this is like after Buddhism had been in China for 400 years. But his translations were not only really beautiful, but he was really, seemed to understand quite a bit about Buddhism, so they're very good translations.

[31:59]

Yes, Ana. What about the translation of Fulcrum of Jiva? Of what? It's never been translated. Of what? To English. Pardon? There is a Chinese translation before . And you said . No, there's no Chinese. No, there isn't. Yeah. Well, we just had this workshop, but... Oh, they said they think there's a translation before Kumarajiva. Yeah, they are working on it to translate that one into English. Oh, okay. So this is the latest scholarly thing. They think there's something before him. I said until... I'm just asking because you're not saying Kumarajiva is probably the one who wrote it. No, I'm just saying until scholarly refutation. Maybe they just refuted me right there. This is later work, right? I didn't go to the workshop. I was out here. If I'd gone to the workshop, I probably wouldn't have said that. So my theory is on the verge of being trashed. I think it does sound great. Because Kumar Jeeva is a layperson, right?

[33:02]

And he wrote this one, this thing. Anyway. Kamarajiva did do a translation, and Kamarajiva's translation, I think they'll agree with this, is the translation that was most popular in China. The Lotus Sutra, by the way, the wonderful Lotus Sutra, was written in Sanskrit, and there are Sanskrit copies of that, but the Sanskrit is low-quality Sanskrit. It's not beautiful Sanskrit. There are beautiful Sanskrit Buddhist texts like Prajnaparamita and, for example, the writings of Shantideva, a very beautiful, high-quality Sanskrit poetry. The Lotus Sutra is low-quality Sanskrit, partly because it's written by laypeople rather than monks. And although it was low-quality, its spiritual energy is extreme. But when Kumarajiva translated it into Chinese, he made it very beautiful Chinese. So Lotus Sutra, partly because of it, the Lotus Sutra was very popular in China. If anything, of all the Buddhist texts, that was like the Bible of Chinese Buddhism that he translated.

[34:06]

But anyway, he translated this thing into Chinese, and... So now we have it, we're here. And then one of his main disciples, or I think his main disciple, was a Chinese person, not a Central Asian person. His name was Sung Jiao. And Sung Jiao, because he had such a good teacher, was probably the first Chinese person, maybe the first Chinese person that really seemed to understand fairly well the teachings of emptiness. Before Kumar Jiva, the Chinese kind of reinterpreted emptiness as non-existence. which they had this idea from Taoism of this thing called non-existence, and they had their whole understanding of how non-existence works. When they translated Buddhist texts, they translated shunyata, emptiness, into the Buddha character mu, which means there isn't any, or non-existent.

[35:10]

Later they translated it with a character which is more like sky or the void. And it doesn't necessarily mean non-existence. But anyway, Kumar Jiva translated the Vimalakirti, and also his disciple, who he seems to have had a pretty good understanding of the teachings of emptiness, his disciple Sungjiao, and that's the next text. What year was Kumar Jiva? I think he was really active, his big translations were happening like in the first fifteen years of the fifth century. There were great Chinese scholars who predated Kumarajiva, but in terms of translation, he was great. And also, even those great Chinese scholars still, there was some unclarity they had about the Madhyamaka teachings, the middle way teachings of emptiness.

[36:12]

Sung Jao seems to be quite good. And Sung Jao, then, is very important to this lineage because it was when the Zen master Shirk To was reading Sung Jao that he had his great enlightenment and then wrote this poem called Sandokai, or The Merging of Difference and Unity, which is now The Merging of Difference and Equality. Anyway, Sung Jao is his next quote here. Okay? Huh? Sanjao. Sanjao. No. Okay. So this is Sanjao. Huh? Sanjao is known as Sekito? No, no. Sekito read Sanjao. Sung Jiao wrote this thing called, which is called the Jiao Lun, the treatise of Sung Jiao. And Sekito read the Jiao Lun and had this great awakening, and then he wrote Zang Dukkha.

[37:15]

So Sung Jiao said, mind is like water. When it's still, there is reflection. When it's disturbed, no mirrors. muddled by follow and craving, planned by misleading influences, it surges and bellows, never stops for a moment. Looking at it this way, there, where can you go and not be mistaken? For example, it is like looking into a flowing spring to see your own appearance. It never forms. And I just wanted to note here that the other day, just yesterday, I guess, we had a ceremony, a bodhisattva precept ceremony, and we have 60 bodhisattvas now, and one of them was talking to me about the precepts in the group, and she was saying that she feels like the precepts are like a mirror.

[38:19]

And then she said, but then, as soon as I look in the mirror, Then the mirror becomes something for measuring or sizing up. And I would add judging. And isn't that how a mirror works? First you look in the mirror just to get a reflection. But then, almost right away, you start measuring. First the mirror just, you just look, maybe sometimes you don't even intend to look in the mirror, you just sort of look to the side and you just see yourself in the mirror, right? At first, that first second there, there's no judging, you just got to get the reflection. But then you say, who is that and is that cute? And how cute is it? Ah, a little cuter today than yesterday. Now it's getting ugly. So the judgment kicks in very quickly after the reflection.

[39:26]

And the precepts are like that. At first the precepts are just a reflection of you. But then the precepts easily can get into using to judge. Like, you know, you look at the precept, for example, of telling the truth. So at first it's just telling the truth at first, or not lying at first, it's just a reflection of you. But then a second later you can think, oh, how am I doing? Or, yeah, how am I doing? And then how are other people doing? And stuff like that. So you see how it's a mirror in that first moment when there's no movement. When you first see the reflection, it's still. And then as soon as you judge... It gets disturbed. And then you can't see. Then it's not a mirror anymore. Then the precepts, in that movement, then you get into judgment. So it's almost unavoidable, though, in the arising of the image, of the reflected image, it's almost impossible in that arising that there isn't some disturbance and then slipping into judgment. But then beyond that, if that keeps moving, then there's a true reflection.

[40:33]

There's not a reference point of how am I measuring up? So you want to recover. Like Kathleen, you want to recover. No, just keep moving. No, if you keep moving, there's more disturbance. As long as there's that movement, there's more obscurity, more dust. You have to go back to the stillness. You're not going back, though. Okay, you're not going back. You have to go to the stillness. We have to go to the place before the judgment. It's the place before neeming. Now, is it the place... Well, it says there's naming, it says there's names before naming. You may have to go back even to, not just before naming, but before names. Because names are coming from the non-abiding basis.

[41:39]

So you have to go back to the non-abiding basis. And then you have to go one more step. To where? The non-abiding basis. What? Emptiness. Yeah, emptiness. You have to go back to the fact that the non-abiding basis has no basis. That's still. Right? Except the word back. Okay, down, up. Around, through, by, for, in. Okay, no prepositions. I don't know if I can follow it all the way through, but it feels like... That's a preposition tone, so... I don't know if I can follow it all the way through. I don't know if I can follow it all the way, period. Was it no prepositions there? I don't know if you can follow it either, but that's the job.

[42:44]

The job is to follow it. For example, yes? I was just thinking that the Chinese word that's applied to that we translate as return or resume. Maybe resuming. Resuming. Resuming. OK. What can we use resume? Can we use return? It's fine with me. That seems to be part of the deal. It's called the character for taking refuge in the Buddha is to return. To return and rely on the Buddha. To return and rely on the Dharma. Sarnam gacchami. Sarnam means to rely. Gacchami means to go back. To return and rely on is what you do in relationship to the Buddha and the Dharma and the Sangha.

[43:45]

Because when things arise and we get, the minds are billowing up, we need to return, we need to go back to the Buddha and the Dharma and the Sangha. I mean, we don't need to, but there's an option. So here we are again returning to the Dharma. He also said, If you take movement of the mind as the basis, then existence is born, based on significations, based on names. When reason completes its initial movements, there is no more basis. If you take nothingness as the basis, then existence is born from nothingness. Nothing is not based on nothing. There is no more basis. He also said, because of non-abiding, erroneous conceptions.

[44:48]

Because of erroneous conceptions, discriminations. Because of discriminations, craving. Because of craving, body. So, it looks like Sangja read the Vimalakirti Sutra. Since there is a body, then good and bad are set forth. And that's what they were discussing just before they talked about the rising of the body in the sutra. Once good and bad are set forth, myriad things arise. It goes on from here. Words are too numerous to go through all of them. Master Sung Jau used the first movement of thought, the fundamental nascence, or ignorance, as the non-abiding basis. So, according to this Zen monk, why erroneous conceptions arise from it, but that is a condition for the arising of erroneous conceptions, as he said above, based on a non-abiding basis, erroneous conceptions.

[46:19]

Right, that was the question. for me, for some, you know, how that happens, what that is. Well, part of how it happens is that in the hubbub of birth, or the hubbub of arising, there is this disturbance of clarity. And in the disturbance of clarity, there's the opportunity for ignorance. And in the opportunity of ignorance, there's the opportunity for this wonderful thing called human samsara. I mean, I just want to jump ahead a little bit here and point out that when Tien Tung wrote a verse about this case, the commentator said, Tien Tung is eulogizing, Tien Tung is eulogizing non-abiding basis, and Tien Tung is eulogizing the establishment of all things. So, on one side, we're talking about how things arise and how that causes confusion and how that's the basis for erroneous conceptions, false discriminations, craving, and this body, which becomes a big problem for us in terms of what it does and the fact that it has pain and all that.

[47:46]

Okay? That's the story about the arising of the situation. But Tantong eulogizes this situation. What does eulogize mean? It means to publicly extol the virtues and accomplishments of a person or a thing. It has the root e-u, which is from e-u-s, which means good. So like Eugene means good gene. Good gene. So he's eulogizing the situation. This is not a bad situation. This is what makes possible babies. I mean, primarily that's what it's about, is making babies. And babies are necessary for Buddhists. So it's basically a good deal. It just has got these aspects of misery and confusion and unclarity and ignorance and so on associated with the process.

[48:48]

I just wanted to point that out before you get too depressed, because that's down a little bit later in the text. We can be happy about this situation. This is job security for bodhisattvas, is to understand this process of how things arise, how names arise on this non-abiding basis, how all things arise on a non-abiding basis, and also how it's possible to study this in such a way that we can become free of this process. Yes? When you're practicing and you want to go back to non-abiding basis, you said non-abiding basis is the first movement of mind. So do you go back and notice where your mind first moved or go back, you know, and that would be the non-abiding basis? Yeah. Except I wouldn't try to go back to it because that would just make more disturbance.

[49:54]

We don't like to try to go back and see that directly, but rather practice meditation, and that will be revealed to us. Maybe some of you had a little snapshot of seeing the arising of things and how it does cause some kind of obscurity of clarity, moments like that. Yesterday you said, without suffering beings, a Buddha has no life. Right. Just made me think of that. And having an impermanent body is kind of a painful situation. Yes? I'm just thinking, isn't there also another reason for eulogizing this painful body? Let's hear about it. Yeah. It's all the wisdom and virtues of the Buddhas.

[51:02]

It's the immutable knowledge of all Buddhists. Let's not get down on this body. So, according to the commentators, Sung Jau used the first movement of thought, the fundamental ignorance, as the non-abiding basis. So here, In this presentation, then, ignorance itself, which is also a non-abiding thing, it is the non-abiding basis that's the source of all things, or what all things rely on in order to happen. So this non-abiding basis would be rather obscure, right? Ignorance could cause quite a bit of obscuration or disturbance of clarity.

[52:23]

Does that make sense? You look depressed. Yes? Sort of in the vein of what Vern said, I was thinking the other day, like sort of a revelation, that the body and... is the very limitation, it's a teaching in itself, it's a very limitation that is needed for freedom. It's like the schedule. There are many levels of limitations that are needed to break away from ignorance, and the body is... is a living limitation. It's a great gift because it is the greatest of gifts. I don't know if it's the greatest, but it's a great one. Don't forget ignorance. That's a great gift too, right? No body without ignorance.

[53:25]

Right. But as you say, it's an opportunity for teaching. So you've got a body, so you can say, what's the body? And then you can get a teaching about where the body comes from. Yes. One of the best ways that I think it's taught in Tibetan lineage is they talk about right view a lot more than we do, instead of ignorance. Then when you say ignorance 10 times to an American audience in half an hour, it creates kind of a, I think, kind of a wet blanket. And I really like this really saying right view coming coming to the understanding or continuing to study until you have the view. Does that make sense to you? Because you were noticing that energy kind of flattening. It's a reaction that I have about terminology, and I just thought I'd say that. Okay, thanks. Between Perthier now?

[54:28]

Yeah, look at everybody perked up. Let's have a few right views here. Huh? A little right view? Feel better? Yeah, you look much better. I am kind of a wet blanket kind of a guy. Okay. You have to have a lot of fire to stand up to this. But if I notice, you know, the fire going out, getting smoldering, hopefully I stop to say, what happened to the fire? Are you a Leo? Are you a Leo? Who? Little Leo. Are you a Leo? Yeah. I'm an aquarium. You're an aquarium.

[55:31]

I can see how Leo lies. Well, her name's Little Leo, right? Leonetti. Yeah. Little Lion. Lion. Okay, so then, in the essence of mind spoken by the national teacher, Chang Liang, A Ching Liang, in reply to the imperial crown prince, recorded in the transmission of the lamp, he says, the ultimate way is based on the non-abiding, no, is based on the mind. The reality of mind is based on no abode. The essence of non-abiding mind is spiritual knowledge undimmed. So this is kind of like what...

[56:42]

This is sort of like what Kathleen was talking about, that even in this non-abiding basis for the arising of things which obscure clearly, the essence of the non-abiding basis is spiritual knowledge undimmed. But you've got to be careful because the essence is not supposed to be a basis, because the non-abiding basis is supposed to have a basis, right? So its essence may be a little bit different than its basis, so its essence might not be like a base or something like there. It's tricky, and you've got to be careful when you hear about this essence, because you might look at this essence, which is like in there that you can get inside of that non-abiding basis. This precious, the silver lining.

[57:46]

Yes, essence is that it has no base. Pardon? Essence is that it has no base. Its essence is that it has no base, and you're saying that, but I don't know if that is the essence, because, in other words, I don't know if having no base is the same as the spiritual knowledge undimmed, but... Maybe it is. Maybe it's possible that something could have no basis, but that wouldn't necessarily be its essence. Maybe its essence might be different from that, even though you're proposing that maybe that is the essence. So then would having no base, would that be, does that seem like that is spiritual knowledge undimmed to you? Does? Yes. Okay. Okay. So, to tune into that station called spiritual knowledge undimmed dash no basis. I'm a lot more comfortable with no basis than spiritual knowledge, because I don't know what spiritual knowledge means.

[58:53]

Boy, do you know what spiritual knowledge undimmed means? That's even worse. So you'd rather have, for now, you'd rather have no basis? Yeah, non-abiding basis. Well, that's okay with you, isn't it? Because she said that was the essence, the non-abiding. She didn't really bring up this thing about the spiritual knowledge I'm doing. This Master Ching Leung did that. I know, and I'm rather upset with that. Well, just, you know, put that in parentheses for a while. We don't necessarily need to talk about him anymore. He just happened to be in there. I didn't want to skip over him, weirdly, just because he said this thing about the spiritual knowledge undimmed. I thought we could cope with it for a little while. Wasn't that the bear froth? Was it? Was that your point there? Okay, so we got through that place. Now there's another national teacher named Ahn, and he brought up the Diamond Cutter Scripture, Section 10C.

[60:04]

You should enliven the mind without dwelling on anything. And enliven is an interesting word there. Usually it's translated as produce or give rise to. So the bodhisattvas should produce or give rise to or enliven a mind or a thought without dwelling on anything." Unquote. Okay? And now, this National Teacher Ahn goes on. This is National Teacher Ahn talking. This isn't the Diamond Citroen anymore, okay? You see the little quotation mark there in the dash. Not dwelling on anything means not dwelling on form, not dwelling on sound, not dwelling on... delusion not dwelling on enlightenment, not dwelling on essence, not dwelling on function. Enlivening the mind means manifesting one's mind in all places.

[61:10]

Oh, manifesting one mind in all places. Call them. If you enliven the mind dwelling on good, good appears. If you enliven the mind dwelling on evil, evil appears. The basic mind is concealed. If it doesn't dwell on anything, anywhere, the whole world is one mind. Enliven doesn't, is not synonymous with activating the mind. It's like giving rise to, rather than activating an already, I don't want to say already existing, but, because it's not, enliven sounds to me like activating the mind. Jazz it up? Well, get it excited. Get it excited? Yeah. No, I think that, no, I think it means, it means, it means in the midst of experience.

[62:19]

So it says, it says, it tells you the things not to dwell in or the places not to be abiding or dwelling in, right? Not on, not on sounds, not on sights, not on smells, not on touches, not on taste, and not on mind objects. So none of the categories of, uh, experience, you don't dwell on any of them. So, but in the midst of these arising, right, all these things are arising, so the mind is functioning. In that situation of the normal functioning of mind, the bodhisattva produces this, like another mind, which is the mind of not relying on any of these objects that it's aware of, not dwelling on them. But mind is aware of these sins, that's experience, but there's no dwelling on them. So this practice of not dwelling in our experience is then kind of the antidote to the story we just read about, where things arise from this non-abiding basis, there's confusion, and then blah, blah, blah, blah.

[63:38]

erroneous conceptions, false discriminations, craving in the body. So it's the necessary antidote for the necessary confusion. Yeah, it's the necessary antidote for the confusion that's necessary for sentient beings to be sentient beings. Yeah, but maybe Liz, because Liz hasn't had a chance yet. Yeah, it sounds to me like a law. Right. It sounds like a meditative, it's a meditation instruction under the circumstances of having now names and forms have arisen, there's confusion, etc., and now the practice is to practice meditation in such a way that the process is reversed. no matter what's happening in all the different situations.

[64:46]

So when good arises, if it does arise, if it does appear, we don't dwell in the good. Evil arises, we don't dwell in the evil. This disarms the good and evil. Disarms them means it takes away their ability to obscure, lose them. Yes? So in the chain of causation, is this the link of feeling? Is what the link of feeling? Is this non-dwelling the link of feeling? Feeling would be one of the places where you could use feeling as one of the places where you practice as non-abiding, but you could also practice non-abiding in any of the other links. Feeling would be one of the places. And if you were dealing with feeling, how would you practice non-abiding? Do you think? Anybody? No grasping.

[65:50]

No grasping, yeah. saying, thank you very much, I have no complaints whatsoever, no matter what you're feeling. If you're smelling lavender, and you're dwelling in that smell, the dwelling is attachment. If you're smelling lavender, and you're simply smelling lavender instead, Is that not abiding? You're not dwelling? I hope so. You're smelling the lavender. But as soon as you say I'm smelling lavender, aren't you abiding? Just before that. Again, you know, lavender... When lavender is a mirror for you, you're not abiding in it.

[66:56]

But as soon as you start judging, evaluating, or as we say, any kind of conceptual elaboration of that experience, then you start dwelling. Isn't it that the mists are what come from the mind and create this lack of clarity? Then you're also having to use the mind to clear the clarity, to be the wind, to clear the mist. Use the mind as a tool. Well, you could say it that way, or not so much, but you don't want to use it in order to, I mean, you don't want to use it in a way of trying to clear away from this. To notice, maybe. Yeah, to notice. Awareness. Awareness without some kind of gaining idea is probably a more effective way for it to clear than to try to interfere with it and make it less clear. So you... Part of not dwelling is to accept the phenomenon just as it is before there's any elaboration.

[67:56]

Does that make sense? Yeah. And there? This might have to be simple. Okay. Wow. We have some great thing going on here. Then the sixth ancestor is talking to his disciple, Shunhui, friend, you have come from afar. That is quite a hardship. Did you bring the fundamental or not? If you have the fundamental, then you should know its master. Try to speak of it. Shunhui said, No abode is fundamental. Seeing is the master. Is that kind of straightforward?

[69:11]

No? No? Claire? That wasn't Claire? So, anyway, the teacher says, well, he says, he asked me to speak about it, he says, if you have the fundamental, you should know its master. Okay? So then, so try to talk about it. He says, know about his fundamental. Is that okay? Okay. Claire? No? Okay. Well, what's the problem with that? We've been talking about that all night, that no abode is fundamental. No abode, no house is fundamental? Hmm? No abode, no house is fundamental? No house is fundamental? Yeah, not dwelling is fundamental. In other words, not having a house or not having a dwelling, not dwelling, that's the fundamental.

[70:15]

That's what the Six Answers, that's what Shun Wei's saying. So the teacher says, do you have a fundamental? He didn't say, yes, I do yet. He said, did you bring a fundamental? If you did bring a fundamental, then you should know the master. So then he says, talk about it. So then this monk says, okay, the fundamental is not abiding, or no abode. No abode or non-abiding is the fundamental. So that's one of the fundamental issues of this case, is the issue of non-abiding, of not dwelling. So we have a practice of non-abiding. We're giving rise to a mind which doesn't abide, and we have a situation where things arise from a non-abiding basis. So non-abiding has something to do with relating to how things arise, conditions under which they arise.

[71:19]

If we have any agenda about accessing how things arise, then we are blocking our accessing of how things arise. If we have no abode, If we don't abide even in the instructions about how to meditate, then we're practicing the instructions about how to meditate as given in the sutra. Okay, so he says, did you bring a fundamental? He doesn't know if you did or not, but if you did, then you should know its master. So the guy says, okay, there is a fundamental. The fundamental is no abode or not dwelling. And the master is seeing. And then later, Shen Wei wrote a little book called Records of Revelation of a Source, and he said, since the demise of the World Honored One, 28 Indian ancestors in India all communicated the non-dwelling mind.

[72:30]

This non-dwelling basis is called non-abiding because of its own nature. If... This is the commentator of this case. If you use merging of reality and falsehood, in one there are many, and in two there is no duality. I don't know if... He says, if you use merging of reality and falsehood, again, that sounds like Sandokai. I don't know. I didn't look up the characters, but that's like Sandokai, right? A little bit. Reality being sameness and falsehood being difference. So if you're using the merging of the two, then when there's one, there are many. When there are two, there's no duality. I don't understand that.

[73:46]

Is that saying that duality rides out of the merging of the atom mostly? If you use the merging of reality and falsehood, being one, is that one the merged reality and falsehood? If you use this teaching of the merging of these two, or the principle of the merging of these two, when you look at one thing, you understand there's many. When you look at two, you realize... There's no duality. And this teaching of the merging of these two is written by a person who read Song Zhao, talking about, like he did a blog there. So you have this teaching of the merging of falsehood and reality, or the merging of sameness and difference. So ultimate truth is the same everywhere.

[74:49]

Relative truths or falsehoods are different. But those two are intimate with each other. If you use that teaching, then when you look at a oneness, at a unitary thing, you understand the multiplicity. You understand other dependents. When you look at two, you understand they're non-dual. And the way of looking at one or two or one or many, the way of looking is looking at the mind that has no abode. That's the meditative pose of the Diamond Sutra in order to be able to see this principle working through phenomenon. Okay? Okay? And then so we have the phenomena of forms arise before substantiation, names arise before naming, once forms and names appear, floating mists disturb the clarity.

[75:56]

Okay, once the clarity is disturbed, then what's the practice? Give rise to a mind which has no abode. Okay? So now you've produced, now a mind which has no abode has been produced, so sway-do raises his step. Okay? All right? In the midst, with practicing with a mind that doesn't rely on staffs, you raise a step. And then you say, everyone, the staff is bringing up both name and form. Okay? This is bringing up name and form. This is bringing up name and form. Okay? On a non-abiding basis. And now there's confusion. Now there's... Clarity is disturbed because I raised this staff.

[77:00]

And, okay, so... But the form is formless and the name is nameless. You are a bunch of blind people, ignorant people, depressed people, without any perception. You only recognize that which is formless and seamless and take it to be the ultimate principle. You turn away from Fa Yin. I find that challenging, that statement. So let's skip over it, okay? Okay. Now things move in a little different direction. And a Zen teacher named Yongming Yanshou wrote this thing called The Secret of Only Mind. And it says, there is not a single name that does not broadcast an epithet of the Buddha.

[78:10]

There is not a single thing Excuse me, there's not a single name that does not broadcast an epithet of the Buddha. There is not a single thing that does not expose the form of the Dharmakaya Virochana Buddha. The reality body Virochana Buddha. There's not a single thing that doesn't expose the Dharmakaya Virochana Buddha. He said that, but he's not the only one that said that. This is standard Buddhology. That the entire universe exposes, without exception, everything in the universe is exposing the Dhammakaya Vairacchana Buddha. So this is a setup for the verse that's coming. There is also a kind who... I don't want to read this part.

[79:14]

Huh? What? I'm having trouble with the part you already skipped. You want to go back to it? You're whatting it? I'm liking it. You're liking it, so you're having trouble skipping it because you like it? Yeah. Or you like it because you're having trouble with it? No, I liked it. I didn't have trouble with it, and then I lost it. Yeah, you don't understand how troublesome it is. Exactly. It's just not troublesome. I think it's the best part. Yeah, okay. Well, come up here and sit by me. Are you serious? No. Go up here and sit by me. Please. I'm not serious, though. What? I'm not serious. I'm a lighthearted guy. Okay. So would you please tell me about this little part that I skipped that I thought was so hard? Well, oh, this is... You don't have to do that. It's pretty deep. This is good. I like your hand there. So would you read it?

[80:19]

Okay, if I read it, you're all a bunch of blind people Without any perception, you only recognize that which is formless and seamless and take it to be the ultimate principle. You turn away from Fayan. This feels to me like an incredible challenge, an incredible invitation, because it's true. This is a wonderful risk I'm taking. You mean it's true that we're blind? Is that what you mean? No. That's the challenge. Because if I see the formless as the ultimate principle, sounds good to me.

[81:27]

Sounds... It's like he's egging them on. Do you see the formless and the seamless as the ultimate principle? Do you do that? In fortunate moments. In fortunate moments you do that? So in fortunate moments you make that mistake? In fortunate moments you turn away from Pai Yen? Well, my confession is that I don't actually know who he is. You don't know who Pian is? I mean, I think that's part of... I know. I know it's right there, but... Oh, but you don't know who he really is. Is that what you mean? That's what I mean. I mean... You know his name's written here by the 74. I see it right there. Okay. Oh, you don't know who he is? I don't, actually. Well, that's great. That's great that you don't know who he is.

[82:31]

Are you upset? Yeah. He's angry. I can tell. I'm not serious. That's one of the things, is the sparing that you do. I'm not angry. And I think it's wonderful that you don't know who Fa Yan is. Well, I think it is, too, in a way. Yeah. But do you think it's fortunate that you don't know who he is? No. It's neither. It's neither fortunate nor unfortunate? No. So what do you bring up this fortunate thing for? Just then, you mean? Before you said, in my fortunate moments, I do equate formlessness and seamlessness with the ultimate principle. You said you did that in your fortunate moments, which goes within your fortunate moments that you turn away from far-in. Now, just a second. Turning away from far-in does not have to be... You don't have to turn away from far-in just because you don't know far-in. Right. Matter of fact, I think it would be great if you could not know Fa Yen like you don't know Fa Yen.

[83:42]

Yes. And when you told us you didn't know, I didn't feel like you were turning away from Fa Yen. I think you're just admitting, I don't know who this is. That's right. Well, maybe somebody else here doesn't know who it is, too. Well, there was a lot of laughing, so there probably were a few people who don't know. Yeah, I mean, knowing Fa Yen is really quite a few. That's what this is all about, isn't it? This is all about knowing Fa Yen. You don't care about the monk. We want to know Fa Yan, because if we know Fa Yan, then we know Song Zhao. We knew a national teacher, Ahn. It's hard to acknowledge that, that I don't know. Well, it's all over. You did it. I know. It is all over. So that's great. That's great. I think that's great. Isn't that nice that she admits that? I mean, that is a big deal about not knowing Fa Yan, but turning away from him. Oh, no, I don't intend to turn away. You don't have to turn away from this not knowing Fa Yan. I mean, this class is trying to encourage each other not to turn away from what we don't know, right?

[84:42]

I'm all right with that part, but I don't intend to turn away nor not turn away from him. But it's said. taking the formless as the ultimate principle, that is turning away from Fanyin, right? It says that, yes. Doesn't that seem reasonable, that taking the formless as the ultimate principle, that that would be turning away from Fanyin, or turning away from the Zen tradition? I just think it's a trick. What's a trick? What's a trick? Then even if I take the formless as the ultimate principle, that I'm in some way turning away from the teacher, that's a pretty intense challenge. What do you mean by challenge? Because I don't want to turn away from the teacher. Right. But do you want to take formlessness as the ultimate principle? Well, why not?

[85:47]

You'd be abiding. What? Because you would be abiding in the formal sense. You'd be abiding. You'd be taking that as a basis for the ultimate principle. Wouldn't you? I got it when you said that to somebody, something like that to somebody else, but I'm not seeing it right now. That's what you're hanging on to. Is that right? And did somebody say something about hanging on to it? Yeah, he's same guy. Oh, same guy. Same guy. He threw his books all the way together. Say this again. Because you're holding on to the idea that formlessness is... The ultimate principle. The ultimate. That you're not letting stuff come up and pass away. I'm stuck on that. And as it tries to move away, I don't want to let go. Formlessness is the ultimate principle. What happens when it becomes form, making formlessness form?

[86:52]

If somebody said that form was the ultimate principle, that would also be turning away from following. But, you know. So it's the clinging. Regular blind people don't make form the ultimate principle. As in hanging on to it like that. Right. regular people, you know, like people in this room, they're more tempted to non-abiding or, you know, or formlessness or something fancy like that, the ultimate principle. Right? Because not everything in the universe is the Dharmakaya, Vajrayana, Buddha. Just special, neat stuff is the ultimate principle. And if we do that, we turn away from fayin. But you don't want to turn away from Fanyin. When you don't know who Fanyin is, you're getting close to the ultimate principle. But not too close. If you want to get a little closer, then you turn away from him. Just not knowing him is pretty good.

[87:54]

As a matter of fact, Fanyin is the guy who said, who was talking to Di Cang, and Fanyin said, I don't know where I'm going." And Di Tsao said, that's most intimate. So you just keep going, not knowing who Fa Yan is and not knowing who Di Tsao is, and watch out for this making, you know, fancy stuff into the ultimate principle, or unfancy stuff into the ultimate principle. But, you know, but by next week, maybe you will know who Fa Yan is. If that's the case, please come and confess. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. I thank you for not letting me skip over even one little paragraph. But thanks to you not letting me skip over that paragraph, now I'm more comfortable with that paragraph. I can go on. And so next week we will dive into the wonderful world of the Avatamsaka Sutra, which is invoked by this verse by Tim Kahn.

[89:05]

So study the verse and read the Avatamsaka Sutra. Not the whole thing, just the chapters on the practices involved in Samantabhadra. and the entry into ultimate reality with Maitreya Buddha, Maitreya Bodhisattva. Okay? And maybe that'll be enough on this case. With enough background you can read a text without abiding in it. I think if we'd read the text like we did at the beginning, some of us might have taken up a boat in the text. You know what I mean? But as it is, I think we didn't get sunk in it too badly, did we? We've made a lot of progress. Can I just say that in the English that she was going over can be deconstructed in two ways.

[90:08]

It can be understood to say what you see is actually formless and seamless and you're thinking it's the ultimate principle. And it can also mean you are taking formless and seamless as the ultimate principle. Okay. Thank you. And good night. Yea, our intention.

[90:32]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_82.43