What understanding I have of what a tesho is, is that it is a very unique expression of a person. What I'm saying to you is not absolute truth. My understanding of what I'm saying is really just my understanding, and if you know that it's just my understanding, then please let me express myself just fully as me. You don't have to see this as any truth other than this is me talking, even that. And I think that's the understanding I have of a tesho, to allow the person to really express themselves just as themselves, their understanding. So I propose my understanding to you, but not that you should take it as true.

[01:04]

I would like to talk more about these two kinds of dependent co-arising, and also the head monk ordered me to do so, right? Can you move a little closer please? So I'd like to use Zen stories, I'd like to use stories to help show these two different things. First to start with a story I brought up the other night, two stories. This is Case 40 of the Book of Serenity, the Shoyo Roku, Sung Rung Lu, the case is introduced

[02:08]

by, where the wheel of potential turns, even the eye of wisdom is confused, when the jewel mirror is opened, not so much as a mote of dust can get past, opening the fist, not falling to the ground, dealing with beings in accord with the time. When two sword blades cross, how is the exchange? Yun Mun asked John Fung, an answer please teacher, John Fung said, have you come to me yet? Yun Mun said, then I'm late, John Fung said, is that so, is that so, Yun Mun said, I thought

[03:22]

I was like Hou Bei, the crook, you're even worse. So the way I see this, this is a story of spontaneous action of independently co-arisen such as, here's another story, King Melinda asked Venerable Nagasena, I'm going to pose a question, can you answer, Nagasena said, please ask your question, King said, I have already asked, Nagasena said, I have already answered, King said, what did you answer,

[04:32]

Nagasena said, what did you ask, King said, I asked nothing, Nagasena said, I answered nothing. So the night I asked Pam to think about, she could see how one story was approaching dependently co-arisen being from the point of view of being and the other one from the point of non-being. At the end of class she said, although in the story of King Melinda and Nagasena they seem to be not really talking about anything, still, the way they're talking is as though they were talking about something, there seems to be something running through the story. I see something being imputed to running through the story, of course, I'm not saying there

[05:37]

really is, I just say I see the story that way, as though there was something through it, as though there was something to investigate. In the other story I don't see something running through it. In the first story I see a one-dimensional linear approach, an ordered sequence with a linear line through it, with a chain of cause and effect that follows very nicely. In the second story there is an ordered sequence of events, but I see nothing connecting necessarily the links. I can make up a story to connect them, but I find the second story to be not one-dimensional and non-linear, and my mind has trouble getting a hold of it.

[06:39]

The first story my mind enjoys grabbing hold of each link and swinging from branch to branch. The more I study the case, the more I study that story, the more skillful my mind could get at dealing with it, I feel. This morning Galen popped one on me, she said, an insect can land anywhere except in a raging fire, in a raging inferno. Our mind can land anywhere, on anything. Our mind can walk on the ceiling of any thought, can walk on the wall, can land on the tiniest little concept we can get a hold of, our mind is very good, but it can't land in a raging inferno, it can't land on a lightning bolt, it can't land on a thunder roll. So our mind can't land in the story of Yunmen and Jiang Feng, it can't land, it can't get

[07:43]

a hold, and their minds can't either. Both stories are dependently co-arisen being. The way both stories really are is suchness, but the first story, I think, demonstrates dependently co-arisen birth and death, and the second story demonstrates dependently co-arisen suchness. So if you want, you can just study those stories and see what you think, see if you can get a feeling for how one would be in the second story, particularly the first story, it may seem to be pretty straightforward that you can follow, you can already follow along in that quite well I think, but the second story, I think you're going to have to die to understand

[08:44]

it. I think you're going to have to, you know, let go in order to enter into that realm. I'd like to go on to another story now, I can do four stories this morning. The next story I already told you, I want to go over again, actually five stories. The next story I already told you is a story about Kanadeva, the one-eyed saint, the one-eyed lord, Nargajuna's primary disciple, the fifteenth ancestor in our lineage, we chant. So, as I mentioned, there was a very powerful logician and sorcerer who took over the most

[09:55]

important monastic university in Buddhism, Nalanda, and the monks there became so desperate that they did a dharma-protecting ceremony to the dharma protector Mahakala, they made offerings to Mahakala beseeching some protection of the Buddhist dharma, and during the ceremony a crow flew out of Mahakala's eye and came down and picked up a petition for help that they had put on the altar and took it and flew it south and gave it to Nargajuna. Anyway, Nargajuna apparently found out somehow about the difficulties of the monks in Nalanda and asked for volunteers among his community and Aryadeva, Kanadeva, he was Aryadeva at the time, noble lord, at that time was his name, he still had two eyes, he volunteered

[10:59]

and Nargajuna trained him taking on the positions that this powerful Shivaite logician and sorcerer would take. This guy's name was, I don't know exactly how to pronounce it, but I think it's Matracheta. So, Nargajuna adopted the arguments that he would probably use and, as I said, he imitated the sorcerer so well that Aryadeva sort of lost his head and dropped his usual deference to his teacher and attacked his arguments with such vehemence that he was actually

[12:00]

able to overthrow his teacher in debate, was actually able to defeat Nargajuna in the debate. Nargajuna was very happy that he had played his part so well that his disciple actually mistook him for a theist and declared that Aryadeva would be able to win the debate. And as I said, he sent him north and he warned him beforehand that he would be asked to make a sacrifice on the way and he must be very careful not to regret the sacrifice. And sure enough, as he was walking along, a beggar asked him for, a blind beggar asked him for one of his eyes. He unhesitatingly removed the eye, plucked the eye from his socket, gave it to the beggar and then went on. However, overcome by curiosity, he turned around to see and the beggar, frustrated in

[13:05]

trying to implant the eye in his own head, had started to smash it on a tree stump. Aryadeva felt a pang of regret and his eye was never restored. You know how sometimes you go to your shopping or something, maybe you're shopping, right, and they give you too much change, ever happened to you? And you say, wait a minute, you gave me too much change, gave me too much money, here. And they take it back and they say, oh my God, that's wonderful, this inspires me that you give me the money back and you feel so good and you walk out the door and you say, ah. Put this slight thing there.

[14:14]

Anyway, he went to Nalanda and as I also told you, he had a shaved head and Matracheta recognized a new shaved head guy coming into the monastery and also I told you a story about they went down into the Ganges and the Sivites and also the Buddhist monks were required now to do these ritual cleanse purification practices and so Aryadeva brought Kanadeva now, blind one-eyed guy, brought this gold container with shit inside and was washing it and Matracheta said, why are you washing the inside where the excrement is? He said, why are you washing the outside when you have to find the inside? And at that time Matracheta recognized he had a worthy opponent here. A little bit later Matracheta was standing in a doorway and he said to Kanadeva, am I

[15:27]

coming or going? And Kanadeva said, that depends on your motivation. Then Matracheta manifested a bird and said, will I kill this bird or not? And Kanadeva said, that depends on your compassion. Anyway, they had a debate then and before the debate started Kanadeva put a bag of shit on top of the sorcerer's parasol to keep away Shiva. Then he threw oil on the sorcerer's magic slate so that Shiva couldn't write arguments on it. Then he manifested a cat to kill the parrot emanation that whispered the answers to the

[16:41]

arguments in the sorcerer's ear. And lastly he made obscene gestures to Pravati, another goddess who was also coaching the sorcerer. And then Matracheta said, how dare you with just one eye challenge me to debate? Kanadeva said, Ishvara, Ishvara means the self-existent one, Indra or something like that, Ishvara has three eyes but still can't see true reality. I with just one eye can see very clearly. And he won the debate. There were judges, right?

[17:44]

It's over. Matracheta was so mortified that he flew off into space. Kanadeva followed him and caught him, warning him that if he didn't stop he was going to run out of atmosphere and die, pulled him back down to Nalanda and locked him up in the Buddhist library. Eventually Matracheta, in studying the Buddhist texts, came upon a prophecy by Shakyamuni Buddha of himself and how he would lose the debate and be converted and become a great Buddhist teacher. And he was so moved that he quieted down and did become a great Buddhist teacher.

[18:56]

So now I would like to read you case 13 of the Hekigan Roku, the blue-cliff record. It's called Baling's Snow in a Silver Bowl. A monk asked Baling, what is the school of Kanadeva? Baling said, filling a silver bowl with snow. What is, dependently co-arisen suchness, filling a silver bowl with snow?

[20:08]

Hiding a heron in the moonlight. When you array them they're not the same. When you mix them you know where they are. And so on. This is, dependently co-arisen suchness. This is the teaching of suchness. This is Kanadeva's school. In the Zen tradition they have a different version of this story. And also it says in here that in doctrinal debates in India the winner holds up a red flag and the loser turns his clothes inside out and walks out a side door. Those who wanted to hold doctrinal debates in India were required to obtain royal permission.

[21:10]

Bells and drums were sounded in the great temples and afterwards debates could start. In Kanadeva's day there were heretics who had impounded the bell and drum in a Buddhist community in a purge. At this time the Honorable Kanadeva knew that Buddhist teaching was in trouble so he made use of his supernatural powers and flew up to the bell tower to ring the bell. He wanted to drive out the heretics. Soon one of the heretics called out, Who is up in the tower ringing the bell? Kanadeva said, A Deva, a Deva, God. The heretic said, Who is the Deva? Kanadeva said, I. The heretic says,

[22:13]

Who is I? Kanadeva said, You're a dog. The heretic asked, Who is the dog? Kanadeva said, The dog is you. After several go-arounds like this, oh excuse me, after seven go-arounds like this the heretic realized he was beaten. So he submitted and himself opened the door to the bell tower whereupon Kanadeva came down holding a red flag. The heretic said, Why do you not follow? Kanadeva said, Why do you not proceed? The heretic said, You're a knave. Kanadeva said, You're a free man. Over and over Kanadeva would respond like this to questions using his unobstructed

[23:22]

arguments to overcome heretics who would themselves submit. At such times the honorable Kanadeva would hold up a red flag in his hand and the one who had been defeated would stand beneath the flag. Among the heretics to have your hands cut off was generally the punishment to expiate losing a debate. But Kanadeva put a stop to this and only required the defeated adversaries to shave off their head and enter the Buddhist path. Therefore the school of Kanadeva flourished greatly. He specialized in defeating other schools and he actually did convert masses of other schools. Master Ma said,

[24:25]

Whenever there are words and phrases, and I would say whenever there is dependently co-arisen being, this is the Kanadeva school. Just this he considered to be principle. All of you in the school of patch road monks, have you ever thoroughly comprehended the school of Kanadeva? Have you comprehended filling a silver bowl with snow? If you have thoroughly comprehended it, then the 96 kinds of heretics are all vanquished by you all at once. If you have not been able to comprehend it thoroughly,

[25:32]

then you can't avoid going off with your clothes on inside out. Tell me, what about this? If you say words are it, this has no connection. If you say words are not it, this has no connection either. Tell me, where does Master Ma's meaning lie? Later on, Yun Nun, the person in our first story, said, Great Master Ma spoke good words, but no one asks about it. Thereupon a monk asked, What is the school of Kanadeva? Yun Nun said, 96 kinds of heretics.

[26:39]

You are the lowest. Yun Nun also said, In India, they cut off heads and arms. Here, you take what's coming to you and get out. He also said, The red flag is in my hand. Ba Ling, the man who was asked what is Kanadeva's school,

[27:46]

and said, filling a silver bowl with snow, he was a disciple of Yun Nun. Instead of presenting Yun Nun with traditional Dharma succession documents, instead he offered him three turning words, or three turning phrases. These phrases were, What is the path? A clear-eyed man falls into a well. That's the first one. Second one is, What is the hair-blown sword? In other words, a sword so sharp that if a hair was blown against it by the wind, it would cut. And the third was,

[28:49]

What is the school of Kanadeva? Piling up snow in a silver bowl. Yun Nun said, Later on, on the anniversary of my death, just recite these three turning words and you will have repaid my kindness in full. Thereafter, as it turned out, Ba Ling did not hold the ceremonial feast on the anniversary of Yun Nun's death, but followed Yun Nun's will and just brought up these turning phrases. I'm saying this to you partly to give you confidence

[29:49]

in the difficult work of understanding the school of Kanadeva, which means the school of Nagarjuna, so that you understand that for the Zen tradition, to understand this filling a silver bowl with snow, in other words, realizing what is the import of dependently co-arisen suchness according to the background teaching of Nagarjuna and Kanadeva, it is a really essential matter, even though it's really obnoxious in certain ways. I found a bookmark in here. It was a Christmas card this year. It's maybe hard for you to see. Can you see? Can you see what it is? It's a cow. Can you see the cow with a black leather jacket on and sunglasses on a motorcycle?

[30:52]

And inside it says, Wreck the malls with cows on Harley. It's from Iva Jones. And finally, I want to bring up another case, which is a two-part case, which I think nicely shows the working of dependently co-arisen birth and death and dependently co-arisen suchness, where you can see the two of them vibrating right together at the same time. This is Case 18 of the Book of Serenity. It's called Zhao Zhou's Dog. The second half of this case

[31:59]

is the first case in the Mumonkan, Zhao Zhou's Dog. Which is also sometimes called the Mu-Kon, which is the primary gateless gate in Rinzai Zen training. It first appears in the Shoyu Roku, and then it was pulled from there over to the Mumonkan, the second part. But I'll read it in the order of the Shoyu Roku. Here again is Master Ma's disciple, Zhao Zhou. A monk asked Zhao Zhou, does a dog have Buddha nature or not? And Zhao Zhou says, have or has.

[32:59]

It's a Chinese character, which means exist. It also means to possess or to have. In Chinese it's pronounced yo. In Japanese it's pronounced yu. So the monk says, does Buddha nature, yo bu yo, have or not have? And Zhao Zhou says, yo, it has. But it can also be translated as yes, it has. And then the monk says, since it has Buddha nature, why is it in this skin bag? And Zhao Zhou says, because it knowingly and willingly transgresses. Then again,

[34:08]

the monk asked Zhao Zhou, does dog have Buddha nature or not? Zhao Zhou said, in Chinese, wu. In Japanese, mu. Means doesn't have any. Does a dog have Buddha nature? Doesn't have any. The monk says, all sentient beings have Buddha nature. Why doesn't a dog? Zhao Zhou says, because it still has karmic consciousness or impulsive consciousness. Does dog have Buddha nature or not? It has. So why does it come into a stick skin bag? Because it knowingly and willingly transgresses.

[35:11]

On the level of conditioned, co-arisen birth and death, what this means is does a dog have Buddha nature? Yes, it does. Well, why would it get into a dog's body? Well, because Buddha nature actually, willingly enters into all forms of being. It does. That's what all scriptures say. It comes down and it's true, it does. It enters into all forms of being. But this understanding, which I've just laid out, is from the point of view of being and this understanding is from the point of view of birth. This is how birth and death dependently co-arise. It's this kind of thinking. Although it's true, too, that the line of thinking is correct. The answer on this level is

[36:13]

does it have it or not? Yes, it has it. Actually, you're saying it does have it. And this thing it has, why would this thing go in, why would this wonderful thing go into a dog's body? Well, because that's the kind of wonderful thing it is. It's so wonderful it goes into dogs' bodies and it goes everywhere. That's the kind of thing it is. Okay? And it's true, that's the kind of thing it is. But it's also, the kind of thing it is, that way of seeing it, is misery. Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? The answer, on the level of suchness, when you say it has, it doesn't mean that it has. And also when the monk says, does it have it or not? He's not asking whether it has it or not. And Jaojo's not saying that it has it or not. When the monk says, well, why in the skin bag?

[37:14]

He's not asking why is it in the skin bag. And when Jaojo explains, he's not saying why it is in the skin bag. Every line in this case is spontaneously demonstrating freedom from believing that Buddha nature is. That Buddha nature itself can be in the category of is. But that level is exactly going on all the time, right with this logic, right with this other level. And they don't have to avoid being involved in this conversation. That's the nature of suchness. It doesn't have to avoid this. I went to a conference, a Christian Buddhist conference at Naropa Institute in 1984, I think. And I was in a panel discussion at the end with Chogyam Trungpa

[38:16]

and Brother David and Joseph Goldstein and some other people too. And at that time one of Trungpa Rinpoche's favorite expressions was first thought is best thought. And he said that. And Joseph Goldstein said, I would say first thought is first thought. And I said, I would say first thought is not first thought. So there you see Theravada, Vajrayana and Mahayana. They're all kind of neat. Can you see that on the level of logical explanation

[39:17]

if Buddha nature is something in which something can have or not have like you could also say does a Buddha have Buddha nature? On that level the answer would be yes, it has. And also if all sentient beings have Buddha nature then dogs should have it too. So yes it has. But still even though all sentient beings have Buddha nature as something you could have still why would it go into a dog? Well, because the nature of it is that it goes into all things and also that it knowingly and willingly does so which is true. Can you see that simultaneously with that there is not being discussed whether it's had or not had and that you can still have that same conversation. But that way of doing it of the way of not saying that Buddha nature is something you can have or not have or that it exists or doesn't exist that way you can't land on. The first way

[40:18]

you can follow through connect each line and there's a line running through there. The second way you can't get a hold of it but it's there. And all the Zen teachers say really they're not saying that it exists or doesn't exist. They say Zhao Zhou is using poison to get rid of poison. He's using the sickness of that language to get rid of the sickness of that language. The next one does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Doesn't have. Mu. Then well all sentient beings have Buddha nature why not this one? Well because it still has karmic consciousness. All sentient beings have the Buddha nature why doesn't this one? Because it still is involved in delusive thought that obstructs

[41:19]

and interferes with it having it. This way of talking happens all over the place in Buddhism. Haven't you heard it? It's logical. It's a sequence orders of events but it's as though there's something there called Buddha nature running through this that you're talking about. On the other level again they're not when he says does he have it or not he's not asking whether he has it or not and when he says it doesn't have it he's not saying that it doesn't have it. And when he says why doesn't he have it he's not asking why doesn't he have it. And when he says it's because he has karmic consciousness that's not the reason why he doesn't have it. But that is the reason on the level of birth and death why one is in misery. That line of reasoning

[42:24]

is how birth and death works. So all three of these stories you can see the two working. Well in the first story I don't see any sign of dependent co-arisen birth and death. You have to have the two stories to see it in the first one. The story of Nagasena and King is not the first case. It's part of the commentary. So in the actual case of Yunmen and Jianfeng there I just see dependently co-arisen suchness shown. In the commentary in the story of Nagasena and the King I don't see co-dependently originated suchness I see co-dependently originated birth and death.

[43:25]

In the story of Baling being asked what is kind of David's school there I see again co-dependently originated suchness only. And in the story of Zhaozhou's dog I see co-dependently originated suchness and co-dependently originated birth and death simultaneously together all the way through both stories. So with those three stories one story you see a pure example of one the other a pure example of the other the next one a pure example of one and the last two a pure example of the two of them simultaneously co-existing. Where you see you see dependently co-arisen suchness completely entering into dependently originated birth and death. You see it knowingly and willingly transgressing right in there and not being the slightest bit touched even though it's totally what do you call it it's totally indicted for birth and death.

[44:27]

It's like there's no shred of resistance or withholding from birth and death in the last story. The suchness is impacted completely in the realm of confusion and suffering. Which shows the identity of the ultimate meaning and the conventional meaning. So in the last story you can see the two truths perfectly identified right at the same time. In the first story it's a little harder to see the two truths. And I that's by way of saying that I want to bring up the two truths later. It's not I can't bring them up too much now but more than that. I'll say this see if you can see if you can ingest this.

[45:29]

The ultimately meaningful dependently co-arisen being in which emptiness is identical with dependently co-arisen in which emptiness is identical with dependent co-arising and the conventional dependent co-arising in which dependent co-arising is identical with emptiness. I wouldn't be able to follow that either. It's just switching the two. That's all. Ultimately meaningful dependent co-arising in which emptiness is identical with dependent co-arising. Conventional dependent co-arising in which dependent co-arising is identical with emptiness. Just like it says in the commentary here on Kannadaiva's school. Kannadaiva's school.

[46:32]

The school of Kannadaiva. It's like that. Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? Right there, can you see dependently co-arisen birth and death? And can you see dependently co-arisen suchness? Dependently co-arisen suchness is the part that you can't get a hold of. Right? Do you see the part you can't get a hold of? Very fast. It's the part that the insect can't land on there. Does a dog have Buddha nature? Yeah, there's something there. Can anybody think of a song for this? I got the name of one. Really? Yeah, that's a good one.

[47:34]

I don't know the words. I know that part. I got plenty of nothing. Nothing's plenty for me. Nothing's plenty for me. Oh. Got my gal. Got my gal. Got my misery. [...] When I thought love was... It's very clear our love is here to stay. Not for a year, but ever and a day. The radio and the telephone and the movies that we see may be passing fancies

[48:35]

and in time may pass and fade. Huh? May go? That's a hard part for me. The radio and the telephone and the movies that we see that we know are passing... Maybe you could teach me. Do that one, Kate. The radio... No, but the tune. I know the words. But what's the tune? The radio and the telephone... Start over again. Start again. The radio... The radio... It's very clear our love is here to stay. Not for a year, but ever and a day. The radio and the telephone and the movies that we see may just be passing fancies

[49:36]

and in time may go. But, oh, my dear, our love is here to stay. Not for a year, though in the long, long way. In time the Rockies may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble, they're only made of clay. But our love is here to stay. Thank you.

[50:12]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ