and I wanted to tell you, some of you already know this, but to tell you that the ancestor Dogen talked about this story twice in his essays, more than twice in his teaching career, but he wrote two essays devoted to this case The first one is a fascicle called Daishugyo, which means great practice. And the second one is called Shinjin Inga, which means deep faith in cause and effect. And in the one that was written first, the great practice, in that fascicle he starts out by reciting this story, you know, when the Zen master, this is a Japanese way of saying his name, Daichi of Hyakujo-zan,

[01:18]

gives informal instruction. An old man generally is present. He always listens to the Dharma along with the monks. And when the assembly retires, the old man also retires. I read that before. And so in this fascicle, the way Dogen relates to the story is the non-duality of the former head monk saying, does not fall into cause and effect, and by John saying, does not obscure cause and effect. He deals with the non-duality of these two responses. But then, towards the later part of his life, he wrote this fascicle called deep faith in cause and effect, and there he denies the non-duality of the two positions.

[02:47]

Or, put another way, he rejects nonduality and just emphasizes Bai Zhang's answer, which is, does not obscure cause and effect. In other words, does deeply concentrate on cause and effect. And So in the later part of his life, he made this shift. And depending on your interest, we'll go into the various possible interpretations, not all of them maybe, but all of them that have ever occurred in the history of Buddhism, plus all of them that you can stand to bring up at this point in history. to look at what does it mean that Dogen has these two different fascicles on this chapter, and that there's so many different views about what this story most deeply means.

[04:01]

Yes? We do have to confess that I do have a constant aversion towards the story. I do. You have an aversion towards the story? Yes. Which part? The whole thing? Well, that somebody proclaims basically to know, like if he's saying he's not of school to cause an effect, kind of like, well, I'm seeing it, and everybody else does not. Like it's kind of, there's a blindness and there's a non-blindness. And it kind of makes me eerie. It makes you what? Eerie. Eerie? Like to think, well, there's somebody who would see it and would be clear about it, versus I obviously don't. And so all of a sudden I miss the point and constantly fall into, constantly obscure it. So it feels like I'm just feeling this separation, and that feels painful. You feel a painful separation from the one who understands cause and effect?

[05:12]

Who is that one? I didn't think he proclaimed he did. I thought he looked like he did, but I didn't think he said he did. He looked like he did because he was able to enlighten the old man. If you understand cause and effect, you have a good chance of helping those who do not. So he seemed to be, at least in this story, successful at helping the old man find the middle way about cause and effect. But he didn't say that he himself, he didn't say, I, Baijong, do not obscure cause and effect. Well, one person did say that, actually. Shakyamuni Buddha did say that. He said, I see, I have been able to see. He said he could see cause and effect, and he saw how it worked, and then he saw how it was reversed.

[06:18]

He saw how the mass of ill was assembled, and he saw how it was disassembled. And he said, I saw this. He said, I have seen this, and if I hadn't seen this, I wouldn't be who I am. But I have seen this, so I am who I am. I'm the Buddha. After that, nobody else needs to say it. We can just be disciples of him. He took the rap. You know what took the rap means? If you commit a crime and then you say, I did it, then we say you took the rap. So he took the rap of saying, I'm Buddha. Now we don't have to say it. All we have to do is realize it. We don't have to say so though. But we do know that somebody did say it. So he is saying that somebody can not, you know, no cause and effect. And also the way he saw it was that he didn't see it by himself. He saw it together with everybody. So it wasn't personal, but there was a clear vision of cause and effect.

[07:25]

And Bajang's saying that the Buddhas do have this clear vision. And then the question is, is the is the clear vision non-dual with the unclear vision. And in the early classical, Bilgin says the clear vision is non-dual with the unclear vision to the extent that he can see the clear vision in the unclear vision and he can see the unclear vision in the clear vision. Just like I did it earlier today. I saw it, you know, in some sense it's a reward to get your practice tested by 500 lives as a fox. But even so, Dogen later said that the point is just the position of the not obscuring cause and effect.

[08:36]

That's the way to go. de-emphasize, forget about the non-duality of that with not falling into cause and effect, because not falling into cause and effect can be understood, can go along with a naive understanding of non-duality, which can lead to disregard for the precepts. which in the later part of his life he didn't want to do. So I hope you take good care of yourself so that you don't get too sick studying this case. We could not mention the case anymore. If that would help. Yes? My understanding is that after the funeral of Fox,

[09:38]

So your understanding is that after the funeral, what happened? He what? Your understanding is that... Your understanding is the fox helped and tricked Bajang after the funeral ceremony? Yes. The old monk, after the funeral of the fox, helped and tricked and killed Bajang. Yes. Do you mean the one who slapped him in the face? Yes. Is that the same one, or is that a different one? No. The one who slapped his face is a different student of Bai Jong, not the old man.

[10:44]

But you might say that, in a sense, that maybe, maybe, what do you call it, Wang Bo, helped bring the spirit of the fox back again to visit the teacher because, as Sarah pointed out, foxes have red beards. And Bai Jiang, when praising his disciple, called him a red-bearded barbarian. So the fox maybe continued to help through the great disciple Wang Bo. How come there's no duality? Did you say how come there's no duality? No, at the end of his life he rejected the non-dual.

[11:54]

He didn't reject duality. He upheld duality. He said, study duality. Cause and effect is duality. Cause and effect. Duality. He rejects... I couldn't understand what you said. Say it again. Slowly, slowly. Say it slowly. Slowly. You said he rejected the duality. I didn't say he rejected duality. Please say it again. He rejected the non-duality of the story and emphasized just one of the answers. He just emphasized Bai Zhang's answer

[12:57]

Of course, he didn't emphasize the other person's answer. In the first case, he brought up both sides, both answers, and showed them to be non-dual. In his later phase, he forgets about the non-duality. He doesn't bring up the old man's story and just brings up the Zen teacher's answer. And then he says, that's the answer. That's what you should concentrate on. You should be meditating on cause and effect. You should be careful about it and have deep faith in cause and effect, that deep faith in cause and effect realizes freedom from cause and effect. Studying cause and effect, learning about cause and effect, that's the way to go, he said, in the later part. But in the earlier part, the suggestion is that to see the right answer and the wrong answer as separate, that's what it means to fall into cause and effect.

[14:06]

That's the earlier view. So we shouldn't see them as separate, otherwise we will fall into cause and effect. The later thing he's saying, forget about seeing them as separate, just focus on cause and effect. So how do we integrate these different interpretations? And this is something to look forward to discussing. Or not look forward to, but I just predict that there'll be more discussion. Yes? If at the time of his so-called mistake, at the time he was asked the question, the old man was not enlightened, And he fell into the ditch, so to speak. Did he have a choice? If he did not have a choice, how could anyone say he was punished?

[15:13]

I It's implied that he was not enlightened. He became enlightened at the turning word, at the end of the story. When the student asked him, he, by implication, was unenlightened. Did he have a choice in giving a different answer? According to some understandings of cause and effect, when you make choices, you do not have a choice about the choice you make. So you do make choices, people see you make choices. but you're not in control of making your choices. However, even though you are not in control of making your choices, you are still responsible for all your choices. But so is everyone else, because they contribute to all your choices.

[16:29]

Because you can't make the same choice when everybody else is different. But you're still responsible in a different way than everybody else is responsible. The way you're responsible, we call Fred. The way she's responsible, we call Sarah. But we share the responsibility. We live in causation together. And we find peace in causation together. But the later Dogon is saying we have to pay close attention to the decision-making process even though we're not in control of it. We pay close attention to all of our decisions as an act of faith, not as an act of control.

[17:37]

We pay close attention as an act of faith rather than as an act of feeling like we are independently making up our conduct. I vaguely remember, by the way, that Dogen says the old man must have enjoyed all 528 bites. Where does he say that? You vaguely remember that? I vaguely remember that. Does he say that in the first essay? It sounds like the first essay, but it also sounds like maybe you were there. Did you have your hand raised? I did have my hand raised. I don't remember hearing the story before, and when we got to the end, and I don't know exactly what the teacher said in praise of red-bearded barbarians, but I thought he was referring to himself because he got slapped, so he had a red face from being slapped.

[18:45]

So... That's possible, but he did say... Yeah, he could have been referring to himself and saying, you know, I've heard that there was... I heard that there were some Zen masters and that they had red cheeks, and now I have red cheeks, so I guess I'm a Zen master too. Could be that way. So if anybody wants to be a Zen master... But... And I thought that was an important exchange. I didn't think it was just a tag. I thought there was something important in that. That's another... Yeah, well, in the slapping and everything? Mm-hmm. In the student slapping and then his laughing and then his saying about the... Well, yeah, one interpretation of the student's story... is, I mean, the second part is that it's kind of antidote to the first part. Because in the first part, Bai Zhang is saying, don't obscure cause and effect. He doesn't obscure cause and effect.

[19:47]

And the second part is kind of like cause and effect is obscured. Not that there's not falling into cause and effect in the same part, but the student's demonstrating freedom from the teaching in the first part. Right. Because out of nowhere I slap. Is that what you mean? Because the slap seems to be out of nowhere? Well, it's... Or it seems to be coming from obscuring cause and effect, as though you don't have to pay attention to cause and effect. Okay. You don't have to... Worry about the effect of having to slap someone. Yeah, and in his question too, you know, his question is, an ancient answered a turning word mistakenly and fell into 500 wild fox bodies. He says, what if one is not mistaken turn after turn?

[20:48]

Okay? What if one is not mistaken? Turn after turn, life after life, turning of word after turning after word. And Bhai John says, come closer, and he slaps him. So this is an antidote to the first part. It could be seen that way. You see, he gave the opposite answer. That's why it's the antidote, because the opposite answer. What's the opposite answer? Well, that's... If the first one was... I don't see it as the opposite answer. There is no falling into cause and effect versus there is falling into cause and effect by the educated. One is saying there isn't cause, calling, and cause and effect, and the other is what? I don't remember.

[21:51]

The old man said that the, I don't know, was the educator, whatever, that they do not fall into cause and effect. That was maybe the wrong answer. That's what is the wrong answer, yeah. Yeah, so the opposite answer would be that they... don't fall into cause and effect. No. He said they didn't fall into cause and effect. Right. I mean, the opposite answer would be that they do, sorry, that they do fall into cause and effect. Yeah, that would be the opposite. But nobody much says that because they don't really fall into cause and effect because they're free. They've attained nirvana, and nirvana is freedom from cause and effect. But to think that freedom from cause and effect means that they don't fall into cause and effect, that's going too far. Because even in early Buddhism, freedom is worked out, only has relevance in the realm of cause and effect.

[23:00]

Freedom outside of cause and effect, who cares? But freedom in cause and effect, that's what nirvana is. I understood that freedom was that you are cause and effect. Freedom is that you are cause and effect? Yeah, freedom is that you are cause and effect, but the very fact that you're cause and effect means that you're not you. Right. So you can say that you're cause and effect, but also remember you're not you. And then be responsible for not being you. And also be responsible for being you. which is the hard part, which is the test of understanding that you're not you, is to see how you handle being you. That's the hard part, right? So is this sort of like, could you say that there's a difference between falling into cause and effect and stepping into cause and effect?

[24:05]

Is there a difference? Yeah. That's an important difference, is that the bodhisattva voluntarily steps into cause and effect because they think something really good is going to happen if they do step into it. so they don't accidentally you know they're not like strolling along the middle way and then trip and fall into cause and effect and oh my god how did i get in this cesspool is no they look at the cesspool and they say oh my god there's lots of good things to do there so they dive in on purpose because they realize they can play with beings and cause and effect so they do it on purpose One turning word that you gave many years ago that had a big impact about this story was you said, they take a swan dive into cause and effect. Could you tell me straight?

[25:14]

Yeah, I think that that's a lovely note to end on. May you all do swan dives into cause and effect. I don't know how that happened, but may we, may our intention equally extend to every being in place with the true merit of Buddha's Way. Beings are numberless. I vow to save them. Dislusions are inexhaustible. I vow to put an end to them. Dharma gates are boundless. I vow to enter them. Buddha's way is unsurpassable. I vow to become it.

[26:05]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_87.39