Number three is destruction. Number four is non-destruction. And so the next one is also neither detachment nor non-detachment. This is, this is, this is, no, no detachment. One starts over on the other side, right? Yeah, so no detachment. Is that one okay? Yep, that's what it says. No detachment, no non-detachment. Pardon? T-A-C-H. T-A-C-H. No detachment nor non-detachment.

[01:22]

Why isn't it also stated neither comprehension nor no knowledge? The way he wrote this is, perfect wisdom means no knowledge. It isn't no knowledge. It means no knowledge. It actually is knowledge. So you could understand that it means no knowledge, not that it is no knowledge, But it is knowledge. Right. Right. you know, teaching of non-abiding and either or.

[02:40]

So I'm wondering why he didn't also make that point with the comprehension and no-knowledge portion. Because it isn't, it is not the non-comprehension of all things. It is not that. It is actually comprehending things. Well, I should say it does comprehend, so it's not the non-comprehension of things. And when it comes to no knowledge, it's, you know, when we say, what is it, it knows things in a way without knowing them as appearances. which is what we normally mean by knowledge. So for example, in the Diamond Sutra it says, for example,

[03:43]

characteristics of Buddha, characteristics of Buddha, as no characteristics of Buddha as it taught by the Tathagata. It doesn't say characteristics of Buddha, characteristics of Buddha, as characteristics of Buddha as it's taught. This is the perfection of wisdom. However, it does comprehend all things, for example, the characteristics of Buddha. comprehension and this no knowledge can kind of be held at once without really getting caught in abiding in either one but the detachment and non-detachment are too dualistic so he kind of stated that as like neither be the Yeah. So, for example, looks like we're talking about this, destruction and non-destruction apply very much to this chart because destruction, again, as I remember, was the destruction of the expressibility of verbal designations.

[05:04]

I usually don't like the word destruction, but perfect wisdom actually destroys the expressibility, which is not there. It shows that there's no expressibility of things. It sees the non-expressibility of things and destroys the notion that they can be expressed. So this chart says perfect wisdom means all these words. The meaning of perfect wisdom comes by these words. But these words do not reach the perfection of wisdom. These words do not express the perfection of wisdom. So the perfection of wisdom destroys the expressibility of these words to represent it. But the words give meaning to guide your meditation on things. on everything you know. So these words can be meaningful.

[06:07]

He says this is the meaning of the perfection of wisdom, which means it's words. The perfection of wisdom is words. Not quite yet. The other one is non-destruction. Perfection of wisdom does not destroy conventional designation. It doesn't destroy karmic consciousness. It doesn't destroy conventional reality. It works with them. It works with conventional reality, and the way it works with it is that it understands that the meaning of conventional reality is words, and that words do not express conventional reality. So it doesn't destroy the conventional reality. It destroys that conventional reality expresses perfection of wisdom or ultimate truth.

[07:09]

Conventional reality does not express it, even though the way conventional reality actually is, is inexpressible. In other words, it is the ultimate truth, really. Finally, conventional truth is ultimate truth. which makes it really no good for expressing. Pardon? There's a clip that you could use on your belt if you want to. Or my finger? Or on your finger. Thank you. This is a person trap here. It's very painful. It's a lot like that, yeah. And it's a lot like being just so won't do, being not so won't do either.

[08:11]

And it's a lot like, I always think of this story in springtime. And you know, you've heard, right, that in the middle of winter in Minnesota, people do not think that it's the beginning of spring. They don't go walking around saying, well, it's really cold, you know, like it's recently been very cold there. They don't say, oh, it's the beginning of spring. So, but anyway, in springtime, I think of a monk asked Feng Shui, Silence is too vague and speech is alienating. How do you avoid these extremes? So speech and silence are, I like this, speech and silence.

[09:22]

Speech, conventional truth. Silence, ultimate truth, is silent and still. So speech, but, [...] silence is alienating. I mean, silence is too vague. So please say something. And speech is annoying. Speech is annoying. How annoying. finally I get to hit you. How can you avoid these extremes? And he says, I always think of Hunan in springtime. The hundred grasses and the partridges chirping. And then there's the other one.

[10:28]

This way will do and that way will do too. This is too vague. This way won't do and that way won't do either. This is too cut off. So these are the worlds where we sit upright and sing and dance. and somehow sing and dance without leaning, if possible, into words or silence. Samsara or nirvana, conventional or ultimate, self or other, self-denial or self-indulgence. Nirvana or samsara, etc. We sit in between these worlds, upright, with everybody, traveling along, singing our song, side by side, through all kinds of weather.

[11:41]

Right? It doesn't matter at all. Just as long as we're together. Recently I've been able to remember that sometimes I don't usually think of myself as into self-mortification. I'm kind of more familiar with indulgence and sense pleasure. But then I remember when I was a child I used to do kind of self-mortification things like I used to wear my winter coat way into the spring. You know, like till June.

[12:46]

And I used to wear my summer clothes way into November and December. I kind of wanted to see how far into the winter I could go. I slept outside in Minnesota as long as I could. So I think sometimes I do want to mortify the flesh, push myself into non-indulgence and sense pleasure. But that's not the point. The point is, are you addicted to one side or the other? The Buddha went one way and the Buddha went the other way. The Buddha went the other way and went back and forth. He went in his life. It's the addiction. Julian, did you have a question?

[13:50]

That's right, the Korean man. Yeah, I'll be happy to. By the way, I want to say again that that song he sang in the villages, which is, I think, translated as Awaken the Will to Practice. If you want to find it, you can find it online by typing in quotes, Is this not urgent? Is this not urgent? And what will come up is various things, and one of them will be, you know, the Korean man's name, and Robert Buswell.

[15:00]

Robert Buswell. He translated it. So if you want to see the text. And as I mentioned before, some people said that that was austere. I can see that. That his song was austere. And somebody else says it didn't seem life-affirming, it seemed life-denying. And I mentioned yesterday that, although I'm not saying what his song is, I'm just saying Buddhism is not life-affirming nor life-denying. It is life-liberating. Affirmation or denial. That's another way that the translation of that conversation goes. The monk says, affirmations to vague, denials to cut off. How do you avoid those? We do not, the teaching is not to affirm life nor to deny it.

[16:13]

The teaching is to protect life. The teaching is to care for life and cherish life. and liberate life from suffering, not to be affirming it. Teaching is not to abide in life, because if you abide in life, you'll become intoxicated by it, and then you'll do unwholesome things. But if you care for life without abiding in it, life will be liberated. And in order to care for life without abiding, we have to, you know, practice ethics and watch out for intoxication. By remembering that life is impermanent, we sober up. And being sober, we're able to care for it diligently, thoroughly, without affirmation or denial. But you have to be quite sober to not — usually, most people have to be quite sober to not lean into affirmation or denial.

[17:18]

Some people do pretty well when they're intoxicated. Not leaning one way or the other. So there's another two worlds, right? To sit upright between the world of affirmation and denial. Don't lean into either. Buddhism's not leaning into either. Although it gets accused of life denying. It gets accused of that. It's not life denying. It is life protecting. the Buddhas and bodhisattvas will give their life to protect life. But they did not give their life to grasp life. Life does that by itself. It's very good at that. Life is like, protect this life. So we got that. And now we need to practice non-abiding in this wonderful opportunity. Catherine?

[18:25]

Yes. I wondered if these concepts that are indicated by these words, whether practiced or realized or embodied, whether then they are expressed in perfect wisdom. When they're embodied what? Not as concepts, but if they're embodied or practiced or realized, are they then expressing perfect wisdom? They do not express perfect wisdom, no. But perfect wisdom expresses them. Perfect wisdom talks. But perfect wisdom is unfabricated and no words reach it. No words express it. But it talks, it dances, it sings. In other words, it uses concepts. Again, it uses concepts to give meaning.

[19:26]

It uses words, but the words do not reach it. That's it again. Wait a second. Did you get it? Well, I got that. Did you get it without grasping it? Yeah, I got it without grasping it. And I still have this little... You still have this little... You have a question? You still have a little question. What's the question? Well, it would be best if I could think of an example. Okay. So you picked up your cup there. There's a way of picking up your cup that in some way expresses no detachment or non-detachment. Or there's a way of picking up your cup that totally expresses detachment. Most people could see that holding the cup like this expresses non-detachment.

[20:33]

Not even if I dropped it on purpose, but when I drop it, people may have trouble seeing non-detachment. I was thinking you might see dissociation. Non-detachment is non-dissociation also. So when I'm holding it, you maybe can see, not necessarily attachment, you wouldn't say I'm attaching to this, but certainly non-detachment might be seen here. I'm not saying it's here, but a perfect wisdom can look like this. But it also can look like detachment. This could look like detachment. You could see detachment here too in perfect wisdom. You don't have to destroy conventional reality what you destroy, you pick it up having destroyed the expressibility of the cup.

[21:38]

What does it look like when the Buddha picks up the cup showing the destruction of the expressibility of the cup? Can I ask it one more time? Can she ask it one more time? Yes. The Buddha held up the flower. The Buddha held up the flower. And it expresses perfect wisdom. Or what the Magga... Kashyapa sees is perfect wisdom when the Buddha holds up the flower. There's an understanding between the two of them in the holding up of the flower. I don't know if he saw perfect wisdom. I think maybe there was a seeing that this holding up the flower lacked any basis for him apprehending it. That is perfect. That's not seeing. That is perfect. Perfect wisdom is that what the Buddha does offers no basis for apprehension, like everything, but the Buddha's like.

[22:40]

So the Buddha can hold up a flower and show you that this flower has no basis for apprehension, and one person saw that. But somebody else can hold up a flower, and all you would see is, I've got these roses, and I'm thrusting in faith. Because that's what they think. That's what they think they're doing. But still, the Buddha could see that this person who's holding up the flower, thinking that this flower expresses itself through the word, the Buddha could still see it's not that way. But somehow, we need some friends to show us another way, to show the same gift from another place. roses thrust in your face with an agenda are expressing perfect wisdom in. They're expressing perfect wisdom in the fact that you can't grasp them. Not in the way they appear.

[23:42]

And not in the way they don't appear, but in the way that they offer no basis for apprehension. Everything's offering this all day long. And some people, like the Buddha supposedly, comes along and sort of aids things, kind of can intensify the concentration so that people can kind of like accept what usually is right in their face, but they can't see because of these addictions to meaning and so on. Thank you for persevering. Yes, Ana. Yes, Ana. So it doesn't need to be an author or a title or a signature for that perfect wisdom? It doesn't need to be. Do a gesture, or a gesture or something, and it could happen.

[24:45]

It doesn't need to be a Buddha. No. But I just wanted to... Yeah, all things are that way. However, the other side is, we need a good friend in order to realize how everything is offering us the same message. In other words, when everything's offering itself to you in the same way, but if you think that you can see it by yourself, then you're distracted. Because part of seeing that things offer no basis for apprehension is to see them with somebody. If you think that you can look at something by yourself, you won't understand that it offers no basis for apprehension. But if you understand that every time you look at something, you're looking at it with the good friend, then you have a good chance to see that the thing offers no basis for apprehension.

[25:47]

In other words, you have a chance of perfect wisdom. So you do need somehow, it's not that the Buddha has to present. You could be walking alongside the Buddha. It's not that the Buddha has to show you the stream, but you have to have the Buddha right next to you when you look at the stream. So Dung Shan's walking along. He left his teacher, remember? Walking, his teacher said, he says to his teacher as he's leaving, just before he's leaving, he says, if somebody asks me what your teaching is, what should I say it is? What do you say? Right. Just this person is it. That's the full statement. The shortened version of it is, just this is it. And he doesn't understand it yet. His good friend's right there, but he doesn't quite, is not quite ready. So then he says, and his teacher says, you have to follow through on this. So he leaves and he walks and he walks. to this river.

[26:48]

And when I was at the river, I asked a Chinese scholar, how far is this river from where he started after he left his teacher? He said, about 150 miles. So he walked for quite a while. He comes to this river. He looks at the river, and the river reveals that the river lacks any basis for grasping. He understands it. But his teacher is there with him. He's not doing this by himself. So the teacher doesn't show it to him. It isn't that the Buddha holds the flower up and the Buddha's showing him. The Buddha's with him. They're both looking at the same thing. So this transmission is a face-to-face thing. It's not something you do by yourself. But it's not that the other face shows you what it is. It's that you see what it is with the other face. We do not realize the way alone. And that's part of the ungraspability.

[27:50]

We're not great Zen students on our own. We're great Zen students with our good friends. I don't know who's next, but I see Hakusho. Did I see Hakusho? You said everything is giving the same message. Silently. Silently. No. The word messages can be meaningful. So things are sending messages, but basically their message is silent, which is quite vague. What did you mean by that? So with words, we get meaning. Meaning depends on words, and we have a hard time with meaninglessness, which means we have a hard time without words. But words themselves are not the meaning, The word gives the thing meaning, but the meaning of the word does not come from the thing. The meaning of the word comes from other words.

[28:53]

So things can have meaning by conventional designation. Without the conventional designation, things do not come with meaning. And this is scary to people, because then they might lean into meaninglessness. The lack of meaning in ultimate truth is not that it's meaningless. As a matter of fact, it's often translated as the highest meaning is that which is free of words, which are usually used to have meaning. So things basically, ultimately, do not have meaning, and that's their highest meaning. But they can have meaning, and we need meaning to enter the highest meaning. You don't necessarily need meanings that are commonly associated with that thing to realize that thing's highest meaning. I think, I didn't quite, I'm not sure quite, you don't need meaning that's usually associated with the thing?

[29:55]

So you said you need meaning to get to the... Highest meaning, yes. In other words, you need... Those meanings that you need in order to do that do not have to be meanings that are typically associated with Right. There could be other meanings that are not typically... Right, like it could be, for example, it could be the meaning with words that the association of this word with this thing gives it meaning, but the thing doesn't give the word meaning. You could have those meanings, which are not very commonly worked with. Did you follow that unusual meaning? So the usual one is, actually people don't, actually often people don't also understand the word is the meaning of that. Sometimes they think the thing has meaning aside from the word. So that might be unusual. But even if they get that part to turn it around, like I said in that movie, and Sullivan says, the meaning of that is this word.

[31:02]

And then she said, the meaning of this word is that. So that's her rendition. The first part, is Buddhism, the second part is not. So you need the Buddhist teaching meanings, actually, which is the meaning of that is a word, the meaning of the word is not that. The meaning of the word is other words. So you need those meanings to enter the ultimate meaning. That's why you need a friend. Does that make sense? And those aren't common, that isn't common. That's a rare, that's a rare meaning. The Dharma is rare. I don't know, I think maybe Myo-Yu and then, oh, Hakusho and then Myo-Yu and then, Sam? I don't know. I don't know. We need a Korean class here. Would you say that again?

[32:04]

Would you say what you just said again? In his case? Before he went. Before he went down to the village? I don't know what kind of spiritual friendship he had as he was traveling from Korea to China. I don't know what kind of spiritual friendship he had. It wasn't mentioned. I don't know what kind of spiritual friendship he had. I don't know how to describe the spiritual friendship he had in the monastery where he was writing all these treatises. I don't know. Yeah, he was a master. He was a great teacher of the Korean elite that were studying, you know, Buddhadharma.

[33:09]

The court and educated people were mostly the people, only people who were studying Buddhism. And the same, and then they transmitted to Japan, the same in Japan. It was the court that was studying Buddhism. Ordinary people didn't know anything about it. They had their own other religions. But then eventually, for example, at the time of Dogen and Nichiren and Shinran in the Kamakura, Buddhism started to reach the people of Japan. And that's part of the reason why I think Dogen concretized, gave a concrete example of perfect wisdom, sitting or ceremonies. And his disciple Keizan even made it more ceremonial so people could see it. So perfect wisdom could express it in a way that people could see if see these forms and then gradually enter perfect wisdom.

[34:20]

But I don't know that much about Hwang Hyol's life. You know, one of them? What I wanted to share was that around the same time, after all these years of monastic practice and scholarship, when he left to sing songs, he also got married, setting kind of the first precedent for a monk becoming a priest. So I would imagine his wife was proud of him. So he got married. But before that, we don't know. I don't know. Say it again. The cup that I am holding up is perfectly still. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

[35:22]

But I appreciate the offering. Very friendly. Nor is it wrong. Want to ask it again? Say, is it wrong? No, no. It's the cup I'm holding up. Is it wrong? Or is perfect wisdom, is that wrong? Is that wrong? No. Perfect wisdom is not wrong? No, no. Perfect wisdom is not wrong, right. Now ask me if perfect wisdom is right. Neither. Neither the cult nor perfect wisdom. Both. Both. That's that meaning which we describe to them. Are you finding a lot of meaning right now? No, I'm just asking a series of questions. Well, if you're not finding meaning, there isn't any. OK. Who's describing the meaning to our conversation?

[36:34]

Is there? You're asking me or I'm asking you? I'm asking you. Who's describing the meaning to our conversation? Who's describing meaning? I don't know. Is anyone in this room ascribing meaning to our conversations? I don't know. And does the trying touch it? Does the trying touch it? Nothing touches. Well, nothing touches it, no. Maybe Sam, where's the next one? Perhaps. Perhaps. Is perfect wisdom dependent upon anything?

[37:39]

Yep. Yeah. And something depends on it. Is perfect wisdom dependent on words as vehicles to express its inexpressibility or are words Yeah, you could say perfect wisdom is dependent on forms because, in a sense, perfect wisdom depends on what it understands. It understands all forms and all emptinesses. So you could say it depends on emptiness because it understands it. And it also depends on form because it understands that forms are empty and so on. So in that sense it kind of depends. It's a dependent co-arising, a wonderful dependent co-arising. And for it to be realized, it depends on friendship, good friendships. So it depends on a context of friendship and it depends on everything it understands.

[38:42]

And it's free of everything it understands, too. It's free of form. It's free of emptiness. But in a sense, it's that freedom that depends on the things that it plays with. Yes? The same as Buddhas appear in response to sentient beings. It's like that. Buddhas depend on the sentient beings asking for help. The appearance of Buddhas depends on sentient beings asking for help, and sentient beings do ask for help, so Buddhas appear. But also, Buddhas also live in another way, and there they depend on form and emptiness interacting the way they do. That also gives rise to Buddhas. That is also Buddhas. They're born there. And then they can appear to beings when beings want them to. Yes? I'm talking about, yeah, affirmation and denial or indulgence and denial.

[39:57]

A question. Is life worth living? This question itself, kind of looking for meaning, for a purpose, which means looking for the affirmation, right? So asking this question itself is more like that. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have this life. How should I take care of life? Is that the right way? But asking the question, is life worth living, sounds like looking for affirmation, right? So she said, you know, Camus' statement that the most important philosophical question is suicide, he said. But another way to say it, the most important question is, is life worth living? And so she's saying, well, does that question mean then is life, is that question trying to look for meaning? And I would say yes. I don't think Camus was doing that. I think he was saying, life which only has meaning by words, is it worth living?

[41:07]

I think he understood that. Is it worth living when life doesn't actually have meaning on its own? Only by without words. Is such a life worth living? He got a Nobel Prize for literature. He knows about words. He knew. I think he knew that. I think he lived in a place where he could see. The meaning just comes from words. It's not in the words. The meaning is not in the words. The meaning of the words is in other words. The meaning is not located in it, but the meaning of things comes from words. He knew that. Is a life like that worth living? That's the question. Not to mention that when there's meaning, the meaning is suffering. So when there's meaning, there's suffering. And then when you understand that the meaning is not exceeding the things, is that a good setup? Do I want to go on with this? That's the question. Some people are asking, is life worth living when they don't have meaning?

[42:13]

And then they think, would life be worth living if I can't have meaning pretty soon? I don't think that was his question. Anything else? Yes. We were talking about this other faith that we need to progress, spiritual progress, that we have to follow. And I was wondering, is this other faith perfect wisdom? Is the other faith perfect wisdom? Are you saying? I think if the face doesn't appear, it could be perfect wisdom. If you can't get a hold of the face, it could be perfect wisdom. But any face you see, you know, like a Buddhist face, that's not perfect wisdom.

[43:19]

That's the face you meet, and in the meeting is where perfect wisdom is. But you could also say that when you're meeting somebody, can you see the face that's between you? That would be the perfect wisdom. Did you say face or failure? Yeah, face. No. No. No, the tradition is one opportunity. You could meet a Buddha face in another tradition or actually, you're right, it has to be in a tradition. Because these Buddhas always come from meeting with other Buddhas. So it's a beginningless process. But it doesn't have to be this historical process starting with that Buddha in India.

[44:19]

It could be other traditions. But all traditions have come from somewhere. So they have a beginning? No. Buddhism doesn't have a beginning. Although when the human mind thinks of the pinnacle arising, it often thinks in terms of beginnings. But Buddhism says, okay, we understand that, but this is a beginningless process. Beginnings are something that's created in karmic consciousness. So when karmic consciousness contemplates the process of meeting, when this isn't the first one, that this has precedents and conditions that it depends on, we think of a beginning. So in common consciousness we say, okay, we have beginnings. But not actually, not ultimately. Yes? So you were kind of saying earlier on that perfect wisdom comes and dances with us.

[45:24]

Did you kind of say that? Maybe. Yeah. Yeah. Except, as you know, perfect wisdom doesn't come. Perfect wisdom doesn't come, doesn't go, and we dance with it. We can dance with perfect wisdom? We can dance with perfect wisdom, yes. And that's supposedly what this guy did. He danced. He did the perfect wisdom dance all over Korea. He went and showed people no coming and going in person. Yes? Yesterday and yesterday, because of the limits that you put on our activities, I had some really good ones going on that I thought were legal, but they weren't. You had some activities you thought were illegal, were legal?

[46:26]

Not legal. You thought you had some legal activities. Yeah. Yeah. But in Duxon, you said, no, don't do that. And so I felt like I was, I felt like a trapped rat. I mean, that's the word, those are the words that came to mind. And I wonder if the happy is what we're talking about, kind of. I mean, where there's no meaning, where there aren't any word meanings in in our activities, that's how I felt. I felt like I was in a non-verbal and non, I'm not sure, a non-meaning, it wasn't meaningless, but it was not meaning with the words, I don't know if this is very clear, but is that this sort of arena maybe in which these other things can become, I don't know if clear is a good word, Well, the arena in which you can be with things without meaning, to be able to tolerate no meaning,

[47:38]

that puts you in the arena where you can understand where meaning comes from and you can understand that things don't have meaning in themselves. So we have to be able to tolerate no meaning. We have to be able to tolerate that things don't arise. And also not veer into meaninglessness because that's another word. So to be with things free of words is perfect wisdom. Perfect wisdom is free of words. But again, it's not dissociation. It's like now we can really be intimate with things without bringing a word in to get a hold of it. Now we can be intimate with the forms and the legalities of practice without the word and without the meaning of the form. Now we're free of the word, but we have to use the words to enter the realm. And we have been using them, and we have been having meaning by using them.

[48:43]

Now we have to wean ourselves from the addiction to meaning and then open to not meaninglessness, but being with things without meaning, without words. But we can't really get there without practicing with words in the appropriate way. Yes? I was wondering if you could just touch on them again, the detachment and non-association. Yes. I'm trying to remember briefly what you said about each of them. Well, like you're going to leave Green Gulch maybe tomorrow. I'm going to be detached from you. I'm going to let you go. Okay? But I'm not going to be dissociating from you. I'm going to still be caring about you even though I let you go. And if you stay, of course, I want to care about you without being attached to you.

[49:49]

Matter of fact, I think I'll be better at caring for you, which is non-dissociation. I have a non-dissociation with you. You can call that an association also. But I say non-dissociation right after I say I'm practicing detachment with you. So the way Huang Zhou puts it is, yeah, detachment. In my relationship with you, I want to not abide in you or me or our relationship. That's detachment. That's the main point. But I don't want that to turn into dissociation and spacing out. As a matter of fact, I'm betting that to really be intimate with you is the path of non-abiding, and non-abiding is true intimacy.

[50:58]

It's not dissociation. So would dissociation be basically nihilism? Yeah, well, nihilism is one of the forms of dissociation. Another one is, for example, what pops in my mind is I heard this person with, what's it called, autistic person. who also writes books and stuff, and he said when he was in the playground and other kids would start hassling him, you know, overwhelming him with social intensity, he would start squaring numbers. Five squared is twenty-five, twenty-five squared is six hundred and twenty-five, six hundred and twenty-five squared is thirty-eight thousand six hundred and twenty-five, thirty-eight thousand six hundred and twenty-five squared is, he would do that. And after a few squarings, he would find himself in a tranquil island, very peaceful.

[52:08]

And the overwhelming social intensity of these mean kids didn't touch him. But he was dissociating. He wasn't with them anymore. He said, that's too much. So somehow we have to get intimate with the bullies, which is really hard. And then that intimacy, we don't abide. And we're just as relaxed as he is on the island, but not dissociated. And we can move and we can go to the next situation then. But he was stuck on the island for who knows how long he was on the island. And he said, the problem is how to get back. And people in another kind of, you know, people take off, you know, without checking with the air control center. So then it's hard for them to land again. So we have to try to develop this non-abiding in relationship, which of course is more difficult, but...

[53:15]

we start in a simple example of relating to each other. We're both sitting still quietly. It's easier. Then we start talking a little bit and then sometimes we lose it or we start moving together and we lose it or we cough or whatever. So we start with a simple example to get the feeling of being close, not dissociating, but not abiding in our place or their place. or in between. And then we start to talk, try to talk and move and see if we can do it and finally go in the playground with the bullies and show them intimacy that's not dissociation and not aggression. When we have detachment and then we have non-detachment, or no detachment or non-detachment, I'm thinking of Emma's question where there's kind of those two pairings on the left, either destruction or non-destruction, you know, like detachment or non-detachment.

[54:19]

Yeah. I'm thinking that disassociation doesn't have kind of an equivalent pairing of either. Non-dissociation is paired with detachment, right? These two are apparent, detachment and non-dissociation. Or detachment and immersion is another way to put it. You're intimate. So it's not that you're not intimate. It's not that you're not immersed. You are immersed, but you're detached. Yes, Lauren. Yesterday you said something about, I think it was in relation to the Bodhisattva dedication and vowing to do that, and that included...

[55:20]

a commitment to, like, hearing the teachings, I think, or something like that. And I'm wondering if you could say something about the difference, or whether there is a difference between, like, hearing teaching and studying teaching. You know, they say you can only see as far as the eye can effectively reach, and my eye practice is not reaching the chalkboard. And I'm not even feeling particularly compelled to really tear apart much or pick notes or anything, and I'm wondering if, You know, and I see sometimes myself trying to remember things. And it's like I'm kind of grasping, like I'm afraid I'm going to forget it if I don't call that fact or that feeling or whatever back into memory, like I'm trying to keep it there. And so I'm wondering how the teachings The teachings are coming to us and they get converted. They touch our body. And our body responds in very inconceivably rich ways.

[56:50]

Our bodies are responding to the teachings. And some of the ways of responding are what we call mind. And that mind which is responding to the — this is a teaching now — and that mind which is responding to all these teachings, then conjures up a state of consciousness in which those teachings appear as words. And when they appear as words in our consciousness, then they also transform our body and cognitive processes. So that when you listen to teachings and listen to teachings, you remember them. You remember them because the basis of what you're thinking is what you have heard, what you have said, what you have thought of, what you have written. Are you saying something like... Yep.

[57:51]

Yeah, it's like that. But even before, some things actually, some things touch our cognitive processes, but we don't know it. and then they touch it again and again and again and suddenly sometimes we become conscious of them. And we become conscious of them as conscious appearances of words and images. But that act of becoming conscious of them also transforms the basis of that consciousness. So things that are not conscious transform the unconscious process, like our physical interactions with each other. And hearing sounds, we hear a lot of sounds that never become conscious, but they transform our body and mind.

[58:51]

Like hearing bells. You can hear bells and not be conscious of them. They change your body and mind. Then you become conscious of them, and then that consciousness also transforms the mind. You hear teachings which are already been touching you, but now you're conscious of them. And the more you hear them in consciousness, the more you transform your unconscious process, which makes you hear it more often. And the more you hear it in consciousness, the more you can practice the teaching. Is it like over-effort then in some ways? I don't know about over-effort, but you could say trying too hard. The way the teaching would like us to learn things the way the teaching's wants us to be.

[60:00]

So the teaching wants us to be upright when words come. That's the best way to learn them. So we're sitting between the world of words and the world of non-words. In the world of non-words and the world of words, both worlds are encouraging us to be upright between them because that's the best way to learn more words about how to be upright between them. So in consciousness words appear because we're open to the world that supports that. And if we're upright with those words, that would be the best way for us to memorize all the teachings that are coming to us. But it's hard to be balanced, so sometimes we balance towards trying too hard to hear the words that are beginning to us, and sometimes we lean the other way into, you know, in some sense, I don't want to learn, or silence. I don't have to. But if you're upright with the words, you will you will listen to them and you will learn them and you will sometimes write them down and you'll start studying them and you'll start speaking them and make, you know, you will expound them from this upright place.

[61:10]

But when you're not upright you may, when we're not upright we're either working too hard or too little, too easy. We're caring too much about learning or caring not enough. Being upright with the teaching is the best way to learn. So that's why we actually, it's nice to have a Dharma talk where people are sitting upright. That's a really good mode. And you can listen without, when you're upright you're listening without trying to get the word. without trying to get the meaning. But when you're upright, you're totally open to it, and you're saying, welcome, Buddha Dharma. Come on in, have a seat. And when you get in here, I'm not going to grab you. I'll let you go if you want to leave. You're a great host to the Dharma when you're sitting upright, when you're being upright. And then that way of being with the teaching transforms your unconscious to make you be able to receive the next teaching that way.

[62:14]

Thanks for the question. Anything else this morning? Yes? I was inspired and kind of reassured by your offering of the story between Long Tong and the Da Wu. Da Wu is the teacher. Da Wu is Long Tong's teacher, yeah. And Da Wu is trying to tell Long Tong that the essence of mind has been taught continuously through receiving tea for Long Tong and receiving food for Long Tong and in bowing for Long Tong and Long Tong now to Da Wu. And then Long Tong starts to think, and Da Wu interrupts and says, like, stop thinking. Well, first of all, he says, when you see it, just see it, which is kind of like be upright. Don't try to get what I just said to you.

[63:22]

And then he says, if you think about it, you'll miss it. Well, you say, how do we do it? And you ask that question. And if you're upright when you ask that question, you say, how do you do it without trying to get how to do it? Is there anything you can do with your body? Yeah, you can be mindful of your posture. You can be mindful of your breathing. And you can notice if you're biting. So, he's Lungtan. His name's not Lungtan yet. He's not the abbot of Lungtan. Now his name's Chongshin.

[64:24]

Chongshin's with Dawu. And they're together. you know, they're living together, they're practicing together. Da Wu is doing nothing but teaching him the essence of mind. And Chongqing is trying to get the essence of mind. He's trying too hard. He's trying to grasp it. So he thinks, he says, where is it? I've been, you know, you haven't been giving it to me. So is there anything you can do? You can be with the teacher, live with the teacher, and be upright with the teacher, and you can ask, is there anything I can do? And you can ask that question without trying to get anything. And then you will let what you see be what you see, let what you hear be what you hear. And if you think about it and think that the thinking will get it, then you're distracted by your thinking. So when your thinking arises, like, how can I get it? That's thinking. You'd be upright with that, too.

[65:26]

Just let that thought be that way. Be open to that. Just like you would be open to excellent teaching. So with excellent teachings, you're open to them, you're not trying to get them. And with disturbing questions of the student, you're not trying to get those either. You're just open to your doubts, your questions, your statements, I'm not getting anything out of this, whatever. When am I going to get the real teaching? Like that story I tell about Suzuki Roshi teaching me to count people in Japanese, you know. He says, I want to teach you to — you know that story? He says, I'm going to teach you how to count people in Japanese. And part of me thinks, why is he teaching me that? Why doesn't he teach me something about Zen? But Da Wu is saying, the essence of mind is that I'm always teaching you the essence of mind. I can do no otherwise. And the student says, well, can you give me an example? He says, yeah. When you bowed to me, didn't I bow back?

[66:28]

Wasn't I there at that time with you? When you gave me food, didn't I receive it? When I sat, didn't you stand by me? And when you were standing by me, didn't I sit? Weren't we doing that together? Do you think there's something in addition to the essence of mind in that? If you do, you're going to miss it. If you realize that what we're doing together is the essence of mind, if you're upright with it, you'll realize it. If you try to look for something, you'll miss it, unless you can be upright with trying to look for something. And I'm not grasping whether you understand that or not. It's kind of like, it's a little bit like, it's a kind of sweet, don't lean, you know, sweet, don't lean into that, just let it go.

[67:32]

It's kind of, but in a nice way. in a nice way. Don't try to get anything out of this. Don't try to gain the essence of mind. Just open to it. He said he was going to teach it. I'm open to it. And here we are living together, counting people in Japanese. So, okay. And again, it's in that story, after he went to sleep, I stopped and he woke up and told me to start again. He said, no, really, I actually do want you to do this. And I did. It was fine. Anything else this morning? Yes. A phrase that's been coming up for me the last few weeks is the phrase, I don't know what cadence it's from, but not knowing is most intimate. Yeah. Not knowing is most intimate. Intimacy is no knowledge. Not knowing is the perfection of wisdom.

[68:36]

But it's not that you don't know anything. It's that you have a knowledge which is not limited to the appearance of things, to the signs of things, to the characteristics of things. How does he put it? He says, No knowledge because if there's anything known, you do not know the true aspect. So you give up knowing things to have this wisdom knowledge. And you know the true aspect of things is that they cannot be known. Yes. Yes. OK. Is it supposed to be either no detachment or non-detachment?

[69:41]

Or is that also supposed to be neither detachment nor non-detachment, because I think it's the way it is there? This is an initiation into intimacy, right? So here's what he says for that one. Wisdom means no detachment or non-detachment because it is not dissociated no detachment from anything at all, yet it is detached from everything.

[70:42]

So then what's the difference between no detachment and non-detachment? Could you read the sentence again? Wisdom means no detachment nor non-detachment. Excuse me, or means either no detachment or, excuse me, means no detachment or non-detachment. I'll read it. Non-detachment. Does no detachment mean to you that you're intimately related to things? I don't think so.

[71:43]

So here's what he says. This is because it, wisdom, is not dissociated from anything, yet it is detached from everything. It's not dissociated from anything, yet it's detached. Non-detachment is not abiding in detachment, right? And abiding in detachment is dissociation. So it's not dissociation, it's not dissociated from anything. It's not dissociated from anything and it's detached from everything. It doesn't abide in anything and it's not detached from anything. Does that make sense? Before you go back to that, does that make sense?

[73:01]

Not abiding in anything, in other words, not abiding in anything, you're detached from everything without being dissociated from anything. Okay, then that, look back there. No detachment, I think, goes with not dissociated. No detachment means not dissociated. Non-detachment means detached from everything. No one to detach and nothing to detach from. Well, if you say that, you might think that you could find that. So it's maybe better to say you can't find any of those things you said there was no of. So I don't want to say there's nobody. I just say you can't find anybody.

[74:04]

Yes? There seems to be parallel here to the Heart Sutra, neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death, et cetera, setting up these balances. Do you know if the Heart Sutra was known in Korea? Excuse me, but that point I'd like to look at again. You said neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death, I know, but usually the first way of reading that is, neither old age and death, which is samsara, nor extinction of samsara, nirvana. So, usually the way you go through it is the 12-fold chain of causation, right? That's a summary, that's a shortened version of 12. You start with ignorance, then you go to karmic formations,

[75:09]

consciousness and so on, which ends in old age, sickness, and death. You go in the chart that way. So that's the dependent core rising. The other way is the extinction. So it's saying that those two versions, it's neither of those. Just to amplify what that's about. Now, how does that apply to what you're saying? My question was basically historical. Was the Heart Sutra known in Korea... definitely this person. But again, it was known among the educated elite. So who, both in Korea and then later in Japan, Buddhism was one of the main ways that they could receive high culture from China. So the elite educated people of Korea knew about the Heart Sutra.

[76:11]

By that time in China, more than just the elite knew about the Heart Sutra. You know, it was actually among the people somewhat by that time, but in Korea they did know about the Heart Sutra, yes, and in Japan, not too long after, they knew about the Heart Sutra. Peter? I really enjoy these And I have an image in my mind of a coin that's flipped up on its side. And I see this system here, or description, as one half of the coin, let's say, comic consciousness. And the other side of the coin is the place where language falls away.

[77:13]

And all the questions are resolved. But there's no language. And these contradictions, which are so difficult to express in language, this binary state, is resolved. And so it seems that The best that we can do with words is flip the coin right up on it and take our consciousness sort of perched on the edge. And my question is, what's the best means for a teacher or a special friend to facilitate the last bump so that people viscerally experience the realm where words and language fall away. And then it will become very clear they can't stay there either.

[78:19]

But you come back and these contradictions have like an outrigger in the world of emptiness, which clarifies them. And so the part that's confusing me a little bit is that language and true language, we can get close But I'm afraid unless we have this visceral experience of language falling away, we run the risk of continually refining the definitions of words and these apparent contradictions of destruction and non-destruction. Do you understand what I'm saying? I think so. Yeah. So you are making a gesture of your hand upright at various points? Yeah. I thought you said something like, unless we viscerally experience the dropping away, we run various risks. Yeah.

[79:23]

So this uprightness I would see as standing between the silence where there's dropping away, visceral dropping away, and the other side where there's language. And if we don't, and we'll never become free over on the side of language. We'll only become free over on the side of silence. That's where the dropping away occurs. And if you don't have the dropping away, you'll just keep working on this refinement. You could say run the risk of ongoing refinement. Another way to put it is you will hopefully continue that process as you become more intimate with the process of refining the language. You will become more upright. As you become more upright with the language, you become more upright with the dropping away.

[80:27]

If I'm not intimate with the refining, I will, that's because I'm not upright. So I wanted the teachers actually basically teaching being upright with language and with silence. until the intimacy with the language is sufficient so that the openness, the complete openness to the dropping away is there. But if we lean towards the dropping away, that's not dropping away. If we lean towards the language, that's not dropping away. So we work with language that the teacher shows a way to hold the language body upright and work with it until there's intimacy with herself and with her friends. And in that intimacy, there is the opening and entering, the dropping away. And then there's returning to the uprightness. Not returning, but there's continuing.

[81:29]

You can see the coins rolling along on this threshold between silence and language. It's rolling along and it also can spin. Both. That's a nice image. But it's always got these two, no matter when it spins, both worlds spin with it. They're both right there. But the language will never be liberation. Nagarjuna says that. You cannot really open to the silence and dropping away until you're familiar, or we could say really familiar, with language. But only the silence is liberating. But the silence teaching, we're not ready for it until we're intimate with the language. And again, we can't be intimate with the language if we're leaning into it. And we can't be intimate with the language if we're leaning away from it. That's kind of like Aaron and Colgan's question.

[82:30]

We have to be upright with the language. When we're upright with the language, we're intimate enough for the time being to receive the silent teaching beyond words. And receiving that, we now can go back and use the words and demonstrate this freedom. Thank you for your questions. It's getting on towards later. We'll never get there, but we're getting We're spinning towards that end and maybe that's enough because this will go on forever. Even after you become intimate with language and enter the visceral realization of silence and freedom, then because of your vows you now demonstrate how to be upright with language and use it in a way that again realizes freedom from language.

[83:36]

So we use language to become free of it and then we use it again to demonstrate freedom from it. There's an initial entry into freedom through proper use of language and then there is subsequent demonstrations of freedom with language until all beings are free of language. And you have been very open to the language and I feel maybe more intimate with it, more upright with it, more ready to open to perfect wisdom. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

[84:18]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_84.13