I felt sort of humiliated and I think what I was trying to express is I felt humiliated in the face or in the presence of our true self. I felt humiliated in the effort to do the impossible and that is I felt humiliated that I tried to do something which I probably shouldn't have tried to do, which is point at the essence of mind or tell you how to approach it or even just I was going

[01:07]

to tell you also how not to approach it. Anyway, as I approached this brilliant light which I'm sort of trying to have us all orient towards which is symbolically in the middle of this room, which of course has no location but just sort of for the sake of conveying my feeling about the situation as though we're here in this middle space here. Every time I was about to do anything about it I just somehow couldn't. I felt always put in my place. Thinking about preparing for the talk I thought, well I can do it, but when I got in there I couldn't. And so tonight I'm in a sense going to try to do again something like that but with hopefully

[02:13]

enough respect and enough caution that I can say something and succeed in expressing myself about this. Now, in the spirit of the meaning is not in the words, I'm not pointing at it, but it responds to my effort and it responds to your effort. We're just in this little room on this little stage here and we're acting out this play, but it has some relationship to this thing which we can't act out, we can't point at. So I'm kind of intimating that there's a light and this light symbolically we can say is

[03:14]

in the middle of the room. The light I'm talking about is not a light that will increase or decrease if we turn these lights off or on, it's not a light we see with our eyes, it's not a light we can grasp. It's not nothing, as a matter of fact it is brilliant illumination and emancipation itself, it is Buddha's knowledge. We can't grasp it by saying that it's nothing, we can't grasp it by ordinarily grasping things. This kind of light, this kind of Buddha's knowledge is what I'm going to basically instead of trying to point at and therefore as soon as I start to point, putting my hands down and feeling frustrated, I'm not going to try to point, what I'm going to do is walk around

[04:17]

it and I'd like you to walk around it with me. I don't want to identify with it and I don't want to separate it from it. I don't want you to identify with it and take it personally. I also don't want you to think that your person is any different from it. You've heard before this thing is all pervasive and yet you can't get a hold of it. Okay? The state of mere concept is Vasubandhu's way of talking about the proper relationship with this thing, which is, you are not it, it actually is you.

[05:24]

In terms of experience of sitting, an experience that someone told me about that he had during satsang and I've had a similar experience of sitting and feeling, sitting and I should say sitting and there being a kind of a concept, a concept of breath, a concept of breathing. Not like a knowledge or an awareness of breathing, but that the knowledge or the awareness is breathing and Chris pointed out something that William Jaynes found out about this too, that he felt that what he found when he looked for what people usually call consciousness, what he found was breathing.

[06:31]

He said, I am breathing, but anyway there's this breathing going on. The breathing that's going on, as you say it's breathing, it is a concept. It's not what you usually would ... maybe not what you usually would call breathing, it may be breathing, it may seem like light, it may seem like a shaft of light, but you know it's not light, you know what it really is, light is kind of like a way to symbolize or conceptualize breathing, but it seems to be breath and it seems to flow and it might also have a conceptual structure of flowing up and down, sort of like the axis of your body. This kind of breath, which is kind of as it appears to you as a kind of gift, if you try

[07:36]

to think of it, that's a perfectly good thing to think of, but the breath that I'm talking about is something that comes to you as sort of by just sitting and suffering. Suddenly this kind of breath appears as a gift. This is a special kind of breath, it's not a breath that you sort of say, okay I'm going to concentrate on my breath. This is a breath that even your mind can't stick to, you're no longer applying yourself to it, it's just this breathing. It's not like there's the mind being aware of things and breath is one of the things you're aware of, it's just breathing. There's not an additional consciousness, there's not even, as William James says, I can't find a consciousness, all I can find is breathing. If you are using your consciousness to be aware of breathing, that's fine, but that breathing is an object of consciousness. The consciousness, the breath I'm talking about, is what consciousness really is. But as soon as there is some awareness of the breath, it is a concept.

[08:41]

And so this breath that is discovered or given to you has a quality that nothing can stick to it. When ideas come up they bounce off it or they slide down it, they can't reach it. There is this clear awareness, it's not awareness of something, it's clear awareness in the sense of just being breath, and nothing reaches it, and there's no effort to try to concentrate on it, because there's nothing else happening except these adventitious and occasional, although maybe every moment occasional, but it seems spacious, like every moment is like meow, meow, meow, nothing sticks to it, and this is just a concept, all right?

[09:45]

Now, I'm not saying that's the essence of mind, that concept, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying to remember that you can't grasp this, that this is just a mere concept, but it is the kind of concept that nothing reaches. There's something about the essence of mind that's intimated by this type of experience, this type of conceptual experience. That's just an example, you know, you're not supposed to have this experience, that's an experience that some people have, of a type of concept where you can see the imaginings coming to and they just slip off. And the fact that the imaginings, that other images, and also attributing substance to this process, are there all the time, any moment you can attribute substance to this thing.

[10:50]

The fact of it not making it there, and the attributing substance, and the imaginings be one thing, and this presence being another, this pure presence being another, the separation of those two is called the accomplished. And it's always that way. The accomplished is the fact that there is a concept every moment that is free of all imaginings, that's the accomplished, but that's always that way and that's also just a mere concept and it can't be grasped. The concept can't be grasped and the suchness can't be grasped. This is experience that someone could have and this would be a way to check out Vasubandhu's formula. What I want to do tonight was imagining the mind of the ancestor, the mind of Bodhidharma's disciple Huika, who said, I'm always clearly aware and no words can reach it.

[11:55]

Imagine that state, which Bodhidharma said, this is the essence of mind. The entry into this is making your mind like a wall. Making your mind like a wall, it isn't like a wall like this, it means you make your mind like breath that nothing can stick to, that's impassive and has no involvements. So put this essence of the mind in the middle of the room and we walk around it and the way I'd like to walk around it is with words and the words I want to use to walk around it are Dogen Zenji's Point of Zazen. It's a short poem sometimes called the Acupuncture Needle of Zazen or the Point of Zazen, Zazenshin. So what I'd like to do is imagine that we're circumambulating this essence of mind with

[12:57]

these instructions by Dogen Zenji about this thing which you can't talk about. These words are not the meaning and yet by saying these words and listening to these words maybe something will respond in us. And before I do that I want to say that I said it, you said it, all the ancestors have said it, nobody knows what Zazen is. It is ineffable, it is really subtle, it is ungraspable, nobody knows what it is. Nobody can do it by himself or herself but also nobody can do it for you and it is done

[14:00]

so to speak, it is done, it does live, it lives but it lives in such a way that I personally do not do it and I don't have somebody else do it for me. I don't carry myself to the practice of Zazen and do it but if I can witness and be there when everything comes together and it is done that's my job. My job is to witness the coming together of the happening of just sitting and after I witness it to act from there, not just witness it but then act. So maybe if we listen to Dogen's words it will help us witness it, we may be able to

[15:00]

witness it. And to connect back to the beginning of the practice period another way of approaching this witnessing or this circumambulating is instead of thinking, oh I can practice Zazen or somebody is going to do it for me or somebody is going to give it to me or somebody is going to tell me how someday or I'm going to understand when somebody tells me how and then I'm going to be able to do it, instead of that way of doing it think of these ten valves of Samantabhadra. So rather than I'm going to do Zazen I'm going to pay homage to Zazen. I'm going to align myself with Zazen. I'm going to praise Zazen. I'm going to make offerings to Zazen. How do I pay homage to Zazen? How do I align myself with Zazen? I sit. How do I praise Zazen? I sit. How do I make offerings to Zazen? I sit.

[16:01]

How do I confess my non-virtue? How do I confess the fact, not that I can't, I'm not confessing that I can't do Zazen, that's not the problem because nobody can. I'm not confessing that I don't understand Zazen. I'm confessing that I don't really believe that my life is Zazen. I have not really been concentrating on what Zazen is moment after moment without stopping. I actually do think sometimes Zazen is a thing, not to mention the fact that I do a whole bunch of other stuff which isn't actually primarily dedicated to practicing Zazen, that I confess. Although I can't do Zazen and nobody can do it for me, I can also celebrate the fact that other people are doing it, or it is done through them, and I pray and I am very happy to see other people practicing it, even though they're in the same ground as me, they still

[17:06]

they are showing their faith in Zazen by sitting, aligning themselves, praising and offering their body, offering their time, their lifeblood to Zazen. They can't do it, but they can praise it with their body. They can offer their body and they can align their body. Then I beg the Buddhas to teach Zazen. I beg the Buddhas to stay in the world and show the example of how it happens. And I dedicate my life to basically copy all the Buddhas by sitting like a Buddha. In all the way Buddhas have sat, I will imitate all their activities, and I will also serve all beings, I will serve Zazen as all beings, and I will dedicate the merit of all this to Zazen. In this way, I walk around Zazen, and this is the purification, accumulation approach

[18:15]

to realizing what Zazen is. Now this other way, these words now are the wisdom approach. And I don't know if this is going to work, but here it goes. And one step before that is, Dogen's point of Zazen is modeled on Tiantong Hongzhi's point of Zazen. Tiantong Hongzhi is the person who compiled the Book of Serenity and wrote the verses. He wrote a point of Zazen too. So I'll read his first, and then I'm going to read Dogen's. So the essential function of all Buddhas, the functioning essence of all ancestors, patriarchs, founders, okay? In other words, Zazen.

[19:18]

In other words, just sitting. It knows without touching. Or the other way to put it is, not touching is the way it knows. It illumines without facing objects. So another way to say it is, when you're not facing objects, that's illumination. Knowing without touching things, its knowledge is inherently subtle. Illumining without facing objects, its illumination is inherently mysterious. Its knowledge inherently subtle, it's ever without discriminatory thought.

[20:20]

Its illumination inherently mysterious, it's ever without a hair's breadth of a sign. Ever without discriminatory thought, its knowledge is rare and without peer. Ever without a hair's breadth of a sign, its illumination comprehends without grasping. Water is clear right through to the bottom. A fish goes lazily along. The sky is vast without a horizon. A bird flies far, far away. And one more thing before we do Dogon, okay? All we have to work with, all sentient beings have to work with is what?

[21:25]

Harmony of consciousness. Harmony of consciousness. And what do we call that in the early part of our classes? Huh? Belief in ... No, not belief. Take away the belief. Ignorance is the same as karmic ... Fundamental ignorance is karmic consciousness, but what do we call it in the Madhyamaka teaching? What? Dependent co-arising. All human beings have to work with is dependent co-arising. And dependent co-arising karmically dependently co-arises, like karma and all that stuff, that's how it happens, okay? That's what we've got to work with, dependent co-arising thing. We've got ... what have we got? We've got flowers and grasses and mountains and people and stuff like that, right? Lunch. This is dependently co-arisen something. From the point of view of dependently co-arisen being which believes that there's inherent

[22:30]

existence, this is called dependently co-arisen birth and death, all right? The characteristics of all things, when dependently co-arisen being happens, from the point of view of being, working with itself to create being, that's samsara, that's birth and death. And everything in that realm has three characteristics, right? What are those three characteristics? What? Impermanence. No-self. And misery, suffering, frustration. Everything that happens in that realm where existent things come together and do-do-do-do, make mother existent things, that follows a cycle of birth and death and everything, every element in that chain, everything in that process always is misery, impermanent and has no self, okay?

[23:34]

Now the way out of this, entering into nirvana, is ... what do we call that? What's the instruction for that? Enter into the state of mere concepts, or make your mind like a wall, or have no involvement with objects, don't activate your mind around objects, don't face things, don't touch things, don't approach things, okay? But the other earlier Buddhist method for talking about it, matching the three marks of conditioned existence, are the three doors to nirvana, the three doors to emancipation. What are these three doors? Signless. Not a hint of a sign. In other words, the door to liberation has no sign, there's no sign, it could be this, it could be this, it could be that, it could be a feeling, it could be a smell, it could

[24:41]

be anything, it has no sign, it could be anything, there's nothing that it is and there's nothing that it isn't, it has no sign, not the slightest sign, there's no sign of where to enter, and the place where you enter without any sign, that's where you enter. There is also another door, it's called the wish list. You enter where you have no wish to enter, where you have no wish not to enter, where you have no wish for anything, where you have absolutely no striving and no seeking. Of course, you're a bodhisattva and you wish to realize your vows to save all beings, including yourself, but the entry is when you have absolutely no wishes, no desires, you're not trying to get anything, and the other entry is empty, you empty everything. Those three are the doors to enter into, that's what it means to make your mind like a wall.

[25:46]

A wall is not looking for signs, has no wishes and attributes no substance to things. You attribute no more substance to things than a wall does. Early Buddhism, those three gates, and those are also three samadhis, you concentrate, you absorb yourself in the signless door, in the wish list door and the empty door, which means you absorb yourself into every single experience of your life. Because it's signless, you never overlook any opportunity, they're all equal opportunities for awakening, because there's no signs. There's no sign saying, this is a better place to enter than that. Every moment, every experience could be it, and that experience has a sign, but its sign

[26:47]

is not how you enter, and no wish, and it's empty, that's how you enter in early Buddhism. Same here, Dogen and Tian Tong Hongjue are saying the same thing, and so is Bodhidharma, and so is Vasubandhu, he's saying, where do you enter? You enter through dependently co-arisen being. How do you enter through dependently co-arisen being? By not attributing anything to it, by not attributing a sign to it, an existence to it, a non-existence to it, a wish to it, an aversion to it, you just leave it as it is and you enter. Meantime, the imputation of things, of signs and wishes, are always there, buzzing around whatever dependent co-arising thing it is. You have to somehow be immobile and stupid so that you just deal with what's happening,

[27:49]

then you get a present. Okay, now here we go, see if this works. We're talking about the essential, if anybody is sleepy maybe they can stand up and walk around. It's at the center now, we're concentrating on the essence of mind, right? And now he's going to talk, he's going to say some words to us about this. Yeah, it's really kind of hot in here, isn't it? Is it? No. It's kind of cold. It's cold. Freezing. Where are the blankets? This morning I had a sweater on during service and this steam was coming off. Do you see it? There's this big steam ball between me and the altar. Okay, here it is folks, the essential working of every single Buddha, the functioning essence

[28:59]

of every single ancestor, okay? What about it? I'm going to read five translations of each point, okay? There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight points that Dogen's making about this thing and I'm going to read five translations of each point because, you know, it's hard, you know, none of them are really, they're all slipping and sliding all over the place, you know, they can't handle it, so maybe between five of them. Okay, the ascent, this point, this point of Zazen, it moves along with our not or non-thinking. That's one, that's the first translation, okay? It manifests without deliberation.

[30:00]

That's the second translation. Yeah. It manifests a not-thinking. It's manifesting without thought. It's being actualized within not-thinking. Any questions? This does not mean you should go around, by the way, not thinking, all right? It does not mean that. What does it mean? It means that whenever you're thinking, there's also not-thinking going on, right? Which we call what? You know, what does Vasubandhu call it?

[31:05]

Huh? Alaya. There's always some part, some deep, subtle part of our mind that's not thinking. It's always going on, and like that image I was using of this breath, okay? This breath is not thinking. This breath is just a subtle image arising, or not even a subtle image, it's just an image arising from our life. But our life is not thinking. Our life is what's happening to us while we're making other plans. Anyway, this process, this thing happens within, it moves along with not-thinking. Or, it manifests without deliberation. It manifests without thought.

[32:08]

It doesn't mean that there's no thought. You don't have to be an unusual person all of a sudden. It just means that the thinking you do, whether it's this kind of thinking or that kind of thinking, is not what makes this manifest. Also, the not-thinking doesn't make it manifest either. It just happens to manifest with the not-thinking. And when is the not-thinking going on? All the time. There's always not-thinking going on. When there's thinking going on, is there not-thinking going on? Yes. When there's not-thinking going on, is there not-thinking going on? Yes. When there's no thinking going on, this not-thinking is still going on, right? When you're in deep, dreamless sleep, this not-thinking is still going on. You're alive. You're conscious. But it's a very subtle consciousness, there's no images being manifested as objects, there's

[33:13]

no knowledge, there's no subject-object, there's no self, but you're 98.6 or, you know, a little bit higher or lower depending on certain circumstances, but you're basically a warm body, you're alive, you're carrying on your life, what you've done in the past is coming right through you, and when you come out of this place back into thinking again, you're going to be in the same kind of person, but you're not thinking, but this consciousness is going on. This realm, this fundamental subtle realm is where it happens. And if the other kind of thing is going on, no problem, don't worry about it, don't mess with it, it will get transformed later, you'll see. Okay, that's the first point, that it moves along with our not-thinking or our non-thinking. It's actualized within this not-thinking.

[34:19]

It manifests a not-thinking. That's another way to put it, see, it's different. So I think there's a kind of thing here. One is that it goes along with this not-thinking, the other is it manifests a not-thinking. In other words, the essential working of the Buddhas needs a working basis, so it manifests a not-thinking as a working basis. It manifests a working basis that has no break in it. It doesn't manifest thinking as its basis, because thinking comes and goes according to circumstances. Only certain circumstances will thinking occur, but this essential working does not set up camp in something which is undependable. It makes its camp in the lowest echelon of conscious life, or the most fundamental, and

[35:24]

undisturbed, okay? Next point is, and here's again five translations, but I won't do them, I'll just read them. It is completed in the realm of non-merging. It accomplishes without hindrance. It completes as not-merging. And it's becoming without interplay. It's being formed within non-dependence. Next one.

[36:35]

As it moves along with our non-thinking, its appearance is immediate. Manifesting without deliberation, its manifestation is intimate of itself. Manifesting as not-thinking, its manifestation has intimacy with itself. Manifesting without thought, that manifestation is naturally intimate. Being actualized within not-thinking, actualization is by nature intimate. A pearl in a bowl rolls on itself.

[37:42]

In the previous one, being formed within non-dependence, becoming without interplay, completes as not-merging, accomplishes without hindrance, completed in the realm of non- or not-merging. The mirror forms objects without subjectivity, or the mirror reflects objects without subjectivity. Forms are accomplished. There is a being formed with non-dependence, there is just being formed. There is just a that-ness, not a that-ness of something or a that-of, just that, no interplay. That's how it's formed.

[38:50]

And because it moves along with our not-thinking, its appearance is immediate. You need thinking to have something not be immediate. Nothing can happen over time without thinking. Things can't be spread out without thought. Being actualized within not-thinking, actualization is by nature intimate, intimate of itself, intimate with itself. Its appearance is immediate. As it is completed in the realm of non-merging, completeness itself, as it is completed in the realm of non-merging, completeness itself is realization.

[39:57]

Accomplishing without hindrance, its accomplishment is realization of itself. Completion as not-merging, its completion is verified by itself. Am I reading too fast? Yeah. Should I stop for a little while? Why don't you, because I've been thinking a lot when you read my studies, there may be more space for questions. Okay. Go over the last section. Okay. Just this last section here? As it is completed in the realm of non-merging. Okay. Again, picture a mirror.

[41:00]

Something's formed in a mirror, but there's no subjectivity there. There's just the form in the mirror. As it is completed in the realm of non-merging, as it is completed in the realm of non-merging, completeness, this completeness is itself the realization. The form in the mirror where there's no subjectivity, that's the completion of the form, not just the formation of the form, but the completion of that form in a non-merging situation. That completeness is itself realization. The completion of a form, the completion of an image, the completion of a dependently co-produced event. There is no interplay with a dependently co-arisen event. There can only be imagination about it.

[42:03]

A dependently co-arisen event is a brilliant thing that is done, and the completeness of that event, of that whatever it is, and if it's an object of knowledge, it's a concept. The completeness of that co-dependently produced concept is itself, the completeness of it is itself realization. The thing is not realization. The completion of the thing, the fullness and accomplishment of the thing, is itself realization. The accomplishment without hindrance, its accomplishment is realization of itself. Without hindrance means non-merging, means no interplay. Interplay is a kind of hindrance. Interplay is an opportunity for merging.

[43:05]

No merging, no interplay, no hindrance. Accomplishment without hindrance, this kind of accomplishment is realization of itself. Just sitting. The accomplishment of just sitting with no interplay between just sitting and anything else. It's not you're sitting with somebody else sitting, it's just sitting. That thing accomplished with no interplay, with no merging, with no hindrance, the completeness of the act of just sitting, that completeness itself is realization. The just and justified and justly arrived at and completeness of your action of sitting, that in itself is realization. Completeness as not merging, its completion is verified by itself.

[44:09]

Not verified by some other way. Verified by itself, by the completion of itself. Becoming without interplay, that becoming realizes itself. You're Zazen, you're Keen Heen, you're sitting. Becoming without interplay. Imagine your Zazen becoming without interplay. That kind of becoming is realization itself. Being formed within non-dependence, the formation is by itself naturally evident. Am I reading too fast? Here's the next one. If its appearance is immediate,

[45:21]

again, immediate occurs where? Where does immediate appearance occur? Remember? Even if you don't remember, I can read it right here. Immediate appearance happens in not thinking, because only in thinking are things not immediate. Thinking is a definition of karma. Thinking is a definition of action. Thinking can imagine over time, across time. Thinking can imagine movement. So, not thinking means within not movement. Not thinking has to be only the realm of the present. So, its appearance occurs and moves along with not thinking, in the realm of not thinking. Therefore, its appearance is immediate. Now, if its appearance is immediate, then you have no defilement.

[46:30]

Where does that sentence go? If its appearance is immediate, you have no defilement. Its manifestation is intimate of itself. Again, manifesting in the realm of not thinking, the manifestation is intimate of itself. It has nothing, it can't get away from itself, because it's happening in not thinking. It's happening in the realm of the present. Through thinking, having some idea. No, if you have ... in the realm of thinking, all this stuff can get defiled and obscured. Thinking is going all ... this whole story, while this story is going on, the story of Zazen, thinking is going on, and thinking is defiling things left and right, all the time, simultaneously, because thinking is going on. No problem, don't worry. It's in the realm of thinking that obscuration happens.

[47:37]

In this realm, there's no obscuration possible. This is dependently co-arisen suchness we're talking about here. This manifestation, that has intimacy with itself, is never defiled. There's no possibility of gain or loss in this situation. There can be the image of gain, or the image of loss, but there's no way for gain or loss to reach this gain or this loss. There could be image of defilement, but there's no way for that image of defilement to be defiled, because its appearance is immediate. Nothing can reach it. It has no interplay. There's no way for it to get defiled.

[48:37]

It's perfectly protected from everything, except its suchness. It's simple, co-dependently produced, as it is-ness. Nothing can reach it. Nothing can defile it. Nothing can obscure it. Nothing can move it, and it can't move anything. There's no interplay. There's no thinking. There's no dependence. There's no time. There's no movement. The thing is complete of itself, intimate of itself, and immediate, and therefore, it's never been defiled, and it never appeared before. It's a brand new, dependently co-produced object of awareness, concept. It's a gift. It's a gift, yeah. It's a gift, right. This whole process is a process of gift, of how perfect all gifts are. But I mean, you were describing this kind of breath that causes a gift, and that's what you're saying.

[49:44]

Yeah, the breath is one, that kind of image, that's one example. A green reed is another example. A green reed that's just a green reed that nothing can get to. Just sit in there like, green reed. That's it, folks. A complete, immediate, non-interplay, non-thinking green reed. Hallelujah. Green reed. Take it home. Defile it. Say it's beautiful, for example. A little green reed. Wow. A little interplay here. That manifestation, naturally intimate, has never, has never been any taint,

[50:45]

has never been tainted. The intimate actualization never has defilement. Okay, ready for the next one? You want a break? What? The whole thing? The intimate actualization never has defilement. Give me intimate actualization any time, man. No problem. No defilement. So when the guy said, I'm not saying that there's no practice in realization, it just cannot be defiled. Right. That's right. This is what he was talking about. And this guy is his disciple. Ready for the next one?

[51:48]

When completeness is realization, when completeness is realization, when the completeness of a dependently co-arisen chunk of being, which to us, in the realm of knowledge, is a mere concept, and just leaving it like that, it's complete as such, when completeness is realization, you stay in neither the general nor the particular. Its actualization, realized of itself, is neither absolute nor relative. This completion, this completion that is verified

[52:54]

by itself, by its completeness, it is verified. This completion, which is verified by itself, is never absolute or relative. That becoming, realizing itself, there has never been absolute or relative. The evident manifestation never has distinction. When completeness is realization,

[53:59]

When completeness is realization, you stay in neither the general nor the particular. Something's there, right? You don't stay in the particularity of it. You also don't stay in the generalness of it. Or, you don't stay in the relativeness of it. What's the relativeness of some phenomenon that you're aware of? Huh? Yeah, it's an object, it's a concept, it's a particular concept, right? That's the relatively produced relative thing, dependently co-produced relative phenomenon. You don't stay in that. You also don't stay in the absolute quality of it. What's the absolute quality of it? The suchness of it. You don't stay in that either. You don't stay in the fact that this thing is not defiled.

[55:02]

This isn't no-words reachable. You don't stay in that either. Why? That's another mere concept which you don't stay in. Completeness itself is realization. You don't have to get over into relative and absolute anymore. Look, there's a compressionist building up here which is going to expunge you from the whole process, in other words. And here it comes. If you have immediacy, without defilement, immediacy is dropping away with no obstacles. If you have immediacy with no defilement, immediacy is dropping away with no obstacles. Well, you have immediacy with defilement.

[56:09]

Well, you don't actually. It would be a kind of faulty immediacy. In fact, we've said before, because, what is it? Where is it? If its immediacy is immediate, you have no defilement. Which makes sense, right? There's no way to have defilement. There's no way to establish any temporal infection time. Okay? So, if you have this immediacy without defilement, which, he said, when you understand what they mean by immediacy, you know there is no possibility of defilement. There's no possibility of karma now in this situation either. Karma is not happening here. So, if you have this kind of immediacy, which is without defilement, that's the only kind of immediacy we're talking about here, that immediacy is dropping away. In that, you don't do something. Because it's not doing anything,

[57:10]

there's no defilement. And because there's no defilement, you don't have to do something to make dropping away happen. The dropping away happens spontaneously in this immediacy, which has no defilement. The intimacy that has never been defiled drops away without dependence. Now, if the intimacy is dropping away, and also the intimacy drops away, the intimacy is dropping away. Intimacy is a definition of dropping away, but also the intimacy is dropping away. The intimacy is really not defiled. It's not defiled also by having to stay around and be there.

[58:13]

Intimacy is dropping away, and the intimacy is dropping away. Okay? It's a pun. Intimacy that is never defiled, this intimacy is liberated without relying on anything. This makes intimacy sound pretty good. Why are we so afraid of it? There wouldn't be any defilement. Geez! That would be scary and boring if we think about it. But this is happening in the realm of not thinking, right? You wouldn't dare do this in the realm of thinking. It would be a total loss here. But in the realm of not thinking, this can happen. We can allow ourselves this intimacy. So, now, intimacy that has never been tainted, that intimacy never fades.

[59:15]

Yet, it is free and relaxed. I'll read the two previous ones to help you understand that better. Sort of a change of tone. Intimacy that is never defiled drops away without dependence. Intimacy that is never defiled, this intimacy is liberated without relying on anything. And then, intimacy that has never been tainted, that intimacy never fades. Yet, it is free and relaxed. It's got to depend on something to fade. You can't fade things without dependency. I don't know where he got this, but... And it's free and relaxed. Because, you know, spontaneous, doesn't depend on anything. This dropping away,

[60:20]

this freedom, this relaxation, doesn't depend on anything. It's a spontaneous dropping away. Intimacy without defilement is being emancipated without relying on anything. Okay, and then one more. Okay, ready? Realization, neither general nor particular, is effort without desire. In other words, realization is effort. Realization is effort, not effort to get realization. We're talking about the effort, which is realization, the realization which is effort. What kind of effort?

[61:24]

Well, it's effort without desire. Makes sense, right? Why would we realize it? Huh? It's wishlessness. Wishlessness, exactly. And this not defiled thing is signlessness. And not defiledness is also emptiness. Energy? You like energy? Like energy? Yeah. No, it wouldn't be energy. That would be either being in general or particular. That realization would be energy spinning on itself. That would be the energy rolling on itself, is what this realization is. Okay, it's not energy. It's energy. The fact that energy is doing its energy thing,

[62:26]

that's what it is. It would be equally not energy doing its not energy thing. It's the completeness of the thing that's happening. It's the codependently produced... It's not the codependently produced energy. It's the completeness of the energy which is the realization. It's the fact that the energy is, as it appears, complete. That's the realization. Isn't the question about... about what the nature of the effort is. I thought what Barbara was asking is is the nature of the effort pure energy? Oh, when you mean energy, do you mean like energy as one of the paramitas, like effort? Is that what you mean by energy? Like enthusiasm? That kind of energy? Yeah, that's what this is. This is the sixth paramita. But this is the sixth paramita which is really the paramitas, you know. It is the paramita that's that's been imbued with prajnaparamita too.

[63:29]

Right? It's an effort that goes along with realization, namely it's not trying to do something. It is just the fact that a living being living... Buddhas are effortful. They're very effortful at being what they are. They're not effortful to, you know, get something. They're not trying to be something. The way they are is effortful. Which is... Without understanding you, I answered it. It's the energy, the completeness of the energy itself. It's the completeness of Buddha's energy itself. That's the realization. Realization that is neither absolute nor relative penetrates without intent. Verification

[64:31]

that is never absolute or relative is genuinely actualized without any attempt. Realization that has never had absolute or relative that realization is carried out without a plan. Our life is what's happening while we're making other plans. Our life is happening without a plan. And this is kind of... This person started to stick with his words. Clearness beyond distinction is practice without aiming at it. Clear water all the way to the bottom. Fish swims like a fish.

[65:38]

Vast sky, transparent throughout. Bird flies like a bird. Amen. The meaning is not in the words yet hopefully it has responded to our effort tonight. Oh, Dogen Zenji says... Dogen Zenji says, although what... Although Chentung Hungger, what he said, there's no problem in it, I'm not criticizing it, still, I want to write a poem too. And his poem is just as good as mine. There's a different flavor though. Notice the slight difference. Water is clear right through to the bottom. A bird goes lazily along.

[66:43]

A fish goes lazily along. Vast sky without horizon. A bird flies far, far away. There's some other things about this. Would you read Dogen? Dogen? His bird thing? Yeah, the fish and the bird. The water is clear all the way to the bottom. That's pretty much the same. A fish swims like a fish. The sky is... vast and transparent throughout. A bird flies like a bird, or you can say, birds fly like birds, or a bird flies like birds, but basically a bird flies like a bird. It's a different flavor. It's a different flavor. These things have different flavors.

[67:48]

Ruojing, Tiantong Hengzhi, he was an abbot of Tiantong two generations before Ruojing. His is more psychological, more subject-object. In some ways the language is closer to to Vasubandhu, in a way, more easily recognized. Dogen's language is... You don't know this offhand, you don't know this by the English translation, but Dogen's is almost all quotations from Zen texts. It's quite a different kind of composition. Sort of like one of those threatening letters that's cut out of a newspaper. Tiantong seems more descriptive.

[69:00]

Dogen seems more like he's trying to... Yeah. Is there some clear preference in your mind for the use of immediacy instead of intimacy? Which seems... Everyone seems to be using intimacy. I presume that's the first one. No, clearly not the first one. The first one is, I think, Tanahashi and whoever else helped him. Immediacy, I guess, is more time-oriented, isn't it? And the other one is more this image of a thing, of the self... Closeness. Closeness and the self-enjoyment samadhi. The samadhi of the thing doing its own thing. But, of course, that's immediacy too. There's no time there. It's not like this, then does this.

[70:03]

There's just this doing itself, this thing happening by itself. There's these things called running pearls that they had in China. These pearls, you put them in a bowl and they actually would roll around the bowl, sort of by themselves. They would roll. Or a Mexican jumping beetle. Zazen is like a Mexican jumping bean, but just in one moment. It's got that kind of presence of a Mexican jumping bean before it jumps, or after it just landed again, or in mid-air. It's got a lot of vigorousness, like it's just popping out of itself, and yet it's not popping out of itself. There's no interplay. It's just... It's alive, you know? And it's complete.

[71:04]

And that completeness is its realization. And that completeness, which is its realization, is its undefiledness. It's its immediacy, it's its intimacy. That's what just sitting is supposed to be like. And, in fact, that's what just sitting is like. And, in fact, that's what we're doing all the time. But it's just hard to not let those ideas reach it, which stretch it out over more than one second. And then, once it gets stretched over two microseconds, it gets defiled. It gets to be something you can do, or not do, or be good at, or not good at, or... Basically, we're back in samsara, folks. Even though it looks pretty much like Zazen, it's really... It's not dependently co-produced suchness now, it's dependently co-produced samsara, in the guise of Zazen. But the point of Zazen,

[72:06]

you just try to put a little point there, one little point of Zazen, just one tiny little point of it. There is no possibility of defilement. There is immediacy. There is one finger. That's why I was so excited about Dogen's last line, because you can't stick a needle in there anywhere. Right. Right. Right. But this isn't like a bird flying far away. That's a stressingly unimmediate thing to say. Well, that's the previous one. A bird's flight is a debunker of spaciousness. It's a debunker of spaciousness. Also, like Daigo said, it seems like the first one is more Chinese, and Dogen is more... He said Japanese, but I don't think so much Japanese. I think he's just more radical. Person. Huh? Dogen is. He's Dogen is. He's radical. Dogen writes like a dogen. That's too much.

[73:06]

But Chinese kind of like, after they make their point perfectly, then they start saying, well, I didn't really mean that. So here it sort of flies away. Don't Chinese people make poems like that? Well, let's make a poem like that, because I'm Chinese, so I'm going to be Chinese, right? Chinese people write poems like this. Whereas Dogen is, in a sense, he's not exactly pointing, but he's kind of like... Like that kind of point. Okay, now. There. We're done. So you described that the vows are a faith approach. There's these approaches. There's a light, you know, in the middle. Yes. And the vows are this faith approach, and the words are this wisdom approach? No. The faith is definitely this wisdom approach, too. The vows are accumulation and purification practices. Okay? They're compassion practices. This approach here is more wisdom practice.

[74:08]

It's more penetrating. Actually trying to, you know, focus your thinking. Get your... You know, this part is, this part is like clean up, you know? This part is right view. This is right thinking. All right? Then between here and the end of the path of sitting in this right thinking are all those other practices. Right intention. Right vow. All those vows, right? Right vow. And then, you know, right speech. Right conduct. Right livelihood. Right mindfulness. Right effort. Those are the accumulation and purification practices. But they don't circumnavigate the mind. You know, we're all... Well, they're circumnavigating and then the thinking is, in a sense, strikes at the center. Yeah, he's putting the...

[75:12]

That's why he's pointing. It's a needle. It's like... I think that's a good... Somebody else pointed out that acupuncture needle, you only use the tip of it, too. You don't use the whole thing usually. It's the tip of the needle. It's this immediate tip of zazen. It's very sharp, present, particular, complete point. And that's... And the right... Our view has to be that way. In other words, which means our understanding of the middle way has to be very sharp. We have to have the correct understanding of what dependent co-origination is. So, I hope that this is a good start, anyway, for us to think about putting together the Madhyamaka teaching, the Yogacara teaching, and the Zen teaching, which are all, basically, trying to understand intellectually and have the right view about what dependent... what Buddha's teaching of dependent co-arising is.

[76:12]

And then, do all these accumulation and purification practices around that and then sit on all that and unify this wisdom view with all these compassion practices and make a Buddha. Right? Sweat. Huh? No sweat. No sweat, right. No sweat. There will be some sweat, but that's just that part of the... That'll just be there, right. Huh? Not... Not in the wintertime. Not in the sand dunes. So, look, you'll wear a heavy sweater. So, I don't know if I should keep wearing that sweater or not. I have a velour kind of v-neck thing that's not quite so warm. Is it going to be relatively warm tonight? It's clear now. Maybe I'll try one more morning. So, watch carefully tomorrow.

[77:14]

I don't see if it's the steam coming. I think that was coming from me. I don't think it was incense. Part of the reason why... Yeah, hot flashes. Part of the reason why I think it was that is because it seemed to be coming from around me because it seemed to be more after I did the nine bows. And as I stood there, it kind of cleared up and then when I did the bows for the ancestors, it got real thick again. I think it was coming from me. Smoke signals are cool. So, anyway, there it is, folks. I'll also... The Green Gulch... Some of the Green Gulch people are going to leave tomorrow. And so, happy trails to you until we meet again. Happy trails to you. Keep smiling until then. Happy trails to you until we meet again.

[78:16]

And also, Tassajar people, again, I want to say you've been very gracious to these people. Very kind of you. They really appreciate it. They had a great time. Right? And it was the best sashim that you've ever... Yeah, it was the best sashim that we ever had this week. They can come up and cook for us anytime. Yeah, you cook very well. And also, as someone pointed out to me, this wonderful event of people coming down is not without cost. And I'm sorry

[79:17]

for some of the costs that it's been. I'm sorry if, you know, there was some difficulty in adjustment. I think there were sometimes some little snags, some moments where people had to make a big effort or some things that might... Anyway, there was a cost. And I hope the cost was worth it. And... And one other thing I'd like to say, and that is that that conference I went to, it was, you know, it was about health and healing, but it was also called... The name of the conference was Heal Thy Planet. It was about health, healing, and ecological. How to heal the planet, too. How to take care of people and how... how doctors and nurses and psychotherapists and all should be concerned about how that profession interfaces with ecology. And it has a big interface. You know how... You know how much stuff they throw away in hospitals and stuff, right? And every time they touch you they hand you a new package

[80:17]

of plastic stuff and then they toss it away. Anyway, one of the guys, they had some ecologists there, and one of the guys who was lots of fun after the end... after the end of a very interesting talk, and the person who talked to me before him was this guy named Rob... something Robbins? What's the guy's name? John Robbins? The guy... The guy who wrote Diet for a New America? John Robbins talked before him. And this guy, after John Robbins, said, basically, the one thing that we can do right now, the one most helpful thing we can do right now for the environment, in America anyway, is stop eating meat. I'm saying this to you guys before you hit the road. No hamburger on the way home. Especially, really especially, beef. It is incredible the damage to the environment that us raising beef

[81:18]

does. I brought back some literature. Ninety percent of the soybeans grown in America go to feeding livestock. Eighty percent of the corn raised in the United States goes to feeding livestock. Two hundred and sixty million acres of forest have been cut down to grow food for livestock. Water. Water. There would not be a drought in California. Even before this rain, we would be able to get by if it weren't for the cattle and pigs. To produce one pound of tomatoes takes about fifty-three gallons of water. And then broccoli, lettuce, carrots, wheat,

[82:18]

potatoes, they go up a little bit from there. Way up to around eighty or so for a pound of those things. Then you go to chickens. And chickens take quite a bit more. I think they take like eight hundred gallons to make a pound of chicken meat. And then you go to pigs. Pigs take sixteen hundred gallons. And then you go to cows. And they take five thousand two hundred gallons of water to make one pound of cow meat. That's enough to run a shower five minutes five days a week for a year. Not only that, but I don't know if we want this civilization to last, but usually one of the main the final devastation of most civilizations in history have been due to soil loss. The United States has so far lost two thirds of its topsoil.

[83:19]

And we're losing it at a rate now we have one third left and we're losing it at a rate of five billion tons a year. And a great deal of that is due to growing soybeans and corn for the cows and the piggies. Not so much for the chickens. They don't need so much corn or soybeans. You can still eat fish, I guess, without this ecological impact because we don't put the water in the ocean for them. But, yeah. Oh, then also just a few other just a few things. You know about the feeding the little animals the antibiotics, right? For women who eat meat 95 or 99 I don't remember which somewhere between there percent of them have significant levels

[84:22]

of DTT in their breast milk meat eaters. Vegetarians have 4% of them show significant levels of DDT. Of course, all this cancer and stuff goes way up for meat eaters. And also in 1960 17% of Staphylococci or 15% of Staphylococci bacteria were immune to penicillin in 1960. 1988 91% are immune to penicillin. Reason? Feeding antibiotics to livestock. There's more. And one other point is that the disease there is a disease which is a disease which is due to lack of protein.

[85:23]

Has a name which some people know the name of you know the name of it? Yeah, that's right. Its rate of incidence in the United States and also in any industrialized country is basically it doesn't exist. Almost nobody has a protein deficiency in America. People starve to death in America. But it's not protein deficiency that gets them it's lack of carbohydrates and things like that or water. It's very very difficult to eat anything if you're eating and have a good protein deficiency. Rice is 8% protein by calorie. Wheat is 17%. Broccoli is 45% protein by calorie. And not only is protein deficiency relatively unknown a disease anyway in protein deficiency as you said. There are I think we all have protein deficiency on some days probably. But to develop a disease

[86:25]

which is due to that is different. But anyway what has almost never been found is any any doctors anywhere in the country have diagnosed a person having a disease due to not getting enough beef. There's no there's no known disease or condition called beef deprivation anyway. No one has ever been found you know dead a few feet from a Burger King. Anyway I'll put the thing on the board. It's just facts you know and then in the back they have the what do you call it the citations where they got it from. And this stuff is the government's putting this stuff out. The problem is of course that the government agencies are doing this research to a great extent but the lobbies are stopping

[87:26]

this information from getting out. But anyway one thing just that one thing of stopping beef or even reducing beef it's like if you reduce it ten percent if Americans would reduce their beef consumption by ten percent the amount of food that would be liberated which could be liberated would feed a hundred million people if we would reduce our beef by ten percent. Since 1909 from 1909 to 1985 Americans have cut their grain and fruit intake in half and more than doubled their beef during that time. Maybe recently we're cutting it down but I'm just saying the big tendency is for beef to be going up and the grains to go down. Maybe it is changing and I think it is. And we should help

[88:27]

the beef people to learn we should help McDonald's to make the transition and they've already started to change those packages those plastic packages to recyclable packages and we should help them put nice little broccolis in there. They can learn how to do that stuff and they can do it well. It's possible and we'll pay for it. Good money here's my dollar give me my broccoli. Not only is it not carcinogenic it's anti-carcinogenic. Anyway that was the one thing that they said the main thing the easiest thing because we don't need it. It's not even really a sacrifice except to our our taste buds and also it's true that you eat a steak you've got something in you. You go ahead you just get yourself a nice big what 10 ounce steak

[89:28]

you put it in there and you've got 10 ounces of steak in you and boy you are ready to meet the world. You eat 10 ounces of rice and it doesn't last so long. It goes away pretty fast it's not that much you have to eat maybe a little more than 10 ounces of rice. A lot of rice. It takes more time to eat. You've got to cook it you've got to chew it it's a big hassle right? Oh it's terrible. But anyway if you want to save this country that's one thing we can do and spread the word because it's it's going to untrain anyway. You can stay up later you know. We could have classes all night here. I'll put it on the bowling board it's called realities.

[90:24]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ