I said, what's the point of this? And he said, no point. And then Neil said, what's this? And you said, no. What's the point of this whole thing? Well, I said, what's the point of this whole thing? And you said, no point. What thing? This one. This one. And then Stephen, and I asked what's the relationship between this kind of talk and the Bodhisattva vow, and Stephen explained that the point is, the reason what they're doing there, the relationship between what they're doing and the Bodhisattva vow is, one's asking a question, the other one's responding. Or I ask a question, he responds.

[01:04]

Now, what do you think of that? It isn't an appropriate response. Well, yeah. Was that an appropriate response? To my question, it was appropriate. Congratulations. That's true. There's some other ones I didn't tell you. Well, we'll just don't do it. It was a good start. But I don't know. How did you feel? Was his response appropriate to you? Yeah, well, I have it, you know. You didn't get anything from it? That makes it appropriate. So, how do you feel now? No, no, the fault is mine. Well, that's pretty much it, folks.

[02:13]

So then there's Linji's blind ass. Do you understand how Linji's blind ass, his story? Do you know this story? The new people and the people who just came tonight don't know the story, but do the other people not understand the story? You don't? What is the story? The story is... I forget the Chinese names. Linji. Linji. And Sanxiong. After you keep the treasure, you buy it. And so... No, he said, after I pass on, don't destroy... Oh, don't destroy. ...my treasury of Dharma eyes, the eyes of truth.

[03:22]

He indicated that he wouldn't. And then he was asked, if he was questioned, what would he say and he shouted, But I was trying to figure out what it was about. It seemed like you made a mistake to say you would destroy that truth, because that was the truth from the moment. He didn't exactly say he wouldn't. He said, how dare I? Oh, how dare I? How dare I? Oh. That's better, isn't it? Yeah, that's better. That makes it seem more that he is not saying yes or no, but sort of thinking to himself maybe, what is the truth that continues, and is it possible?

[04:37]

to say anything that is truth right now. See, I'm very confused about this, but I'm trying to figure out. And when asked about it, the shout seemed to me a response to an impossible dilemma, that it was both truth that he was asked to save, and yet we knew that in the next moment, the truth would be a different thing. That's as far as I got to figure it out. I'm wondering what's the best way to approach this story. Okie doke.

[05:44]

Let's read it. We can even read the introduction. But let's not. Let's just read the story. Everybody got one sort of in front of them? I'm sure. Might there be something important in the introduction? The introduction's the whole point. Oh, OK. How come I can read it? Because we want to skip over the point first. OK. So obvious. Ready? When Lingyi didn't come to God to get my sunshine, after I passed on to destroy my treasury of the eyes of truth, sunshine said, how dare I destroy the teacher's treasury of light?

[06:48]

Then she said, if someone suddenly questions you about it, how will you reply? Sana shunned immediately. Then she said, who would have known that my treasury of the eyes of truth would perish this blind ass? Okay. Now do you want to read the introduction? So there it is, the Bodhisattva vow, right? You can see the stories about the bodhisattva vow because it has it right at the beginning.

[07:50]

Devoted entirely to helping others. That's what Zen monks are about. And also when you're devoted entirely to helping others, at that time you don't know there is a self. Isn't that interesting? What do you think about that? It makes it easy to understand the whole story. Well, isn't that enough? Yeah. Actually, the fact that you understand that makes the reason why the rest of this story is not being understood doesn't matter. Not being understood in some sense means one kind of not understanding is that you can't get a hold of it because it doesn't have a self. It doesn't have an inherent substantial thing that you can get a hold of. The first line, though, has a nice substantial self that you can get a hold of, right?

[08:51]

It's nice. Does that make sense to you folks, that somebody who is entirely devoted to helping others doesn't know there is a self? Does that make sense to you? So pretty much you're in agreement with these Buddhists here. Okay. Well, let's see. Let's go further. Any big questions so far? We sort of have unanimous agreements so far, right? Uh-oh. I actually... Oh, no. How could you do it? That's what I'm wondering. How could I be entirely devoted to helping others if I don't know that there is a self? Well, would someone care to explain this to me? You, yourself, or the others. That would explain how I might be devoted to self, to others, thinking that I had a self, but it doesn't explain how I could have the concept of others and not have a concept, too.

[10:12]

It doesn't explain how you'd have a concept of others and not have a concept of self. I don't see anything about concept. No concept is mine. You don't have to have a concept of others in order to be entire. The way I read this is, not that you think you're entirely devoted to others, that you are. You might not even think that. If you think that you're entirely devoted to others, then you've got a problem. What do we call those things when you think that way? A hindrance. I heard a whole bunch of answers there. Delusions, yes. View of self. View of self. Outflows. What else? What else did you say? Hindrance. Hindrance, yeah. Suffering. What? Suffering. Suffering. Well, those cause suffering. Those aren't suffering. Those are mental tricks. But they cause suffering. They're marked by suffering. Of course. Anyway, does that make sense? I read it as when you're actually devoted to others, not that you think you're devoted to others, when you're actually devoted to others, you don't know what the self is.

[11:19]

Now, you don't know there is a self. No, you don't know there is a self. In other words, it isn't that you think there isn't a self. It isn't that you think there is a self. You just don't get into knowing what the self is. You don't have a view of the self as some such a thing. Thank you. I feel much more comfortable with this. All right. Good. And now I'm ready to go along with that. All right. Do we have unanimity now? We're on to the end of this? Okay. Great. And next is you should exert the law to the fullest without concern that there are no people. How's that for everybody? Okay. The Bodhisattva exerts the Buddhist law, the Buddhist teaching wholeheartedly to the fullest and doesn't get upset about the fact that this project of total devotion to the benefit of others is done even though there's no others. As a matter of fact, the fact that there aren't any other people, really, is when it's possible for you to be totally devoted to

[12:27]

If there really were other people, you could only be partly devoted to them. Does that make sense to you? There's one very thing that would happen to you. If you thought there were other people and then you tried to help them, what would happen to you? Well, if you thought there were others? I couldn't hear. If you thought there were others, that there were other people, and you tried to help them, what would happen to you? What? Yeah, you would get burned out. Yeah, you'd get burned out. Why would you get burned out if you thought there were others? What? You'd be attached to what you're doing, and... you get involved in what? Short circuit. Short circuit yourself. If you see others and you think they're out there and you try to help them, either you deflate yourself by giving to them or you inflate yourself by receiving from them.

[13:37]

Now, if you consistently give to the other, if you think there's an other that you're giving to and you consistently do that, then you get really more and more deflated until finally you're just flat out like a pancake. And then you can't be devoted to helping people anymore. Now, if it goes the other way and it's coming towards you, and they're saying, oh, you're such a great blah-de-blah and so on and so forth, then you puff up. And that's pretty good until somebody pops the bubble and they splatter all over the place. The other possibility might say, well, how about if I switch back and forth between giving depleting myself and then taking and inflating myself. Well, then you're like this. You're vibrating all the time and you're very nervous and upset. So at that time, two people don't really find you that helpful, except as an example of nervousness. So in order to help people in a consistent way, entirely devoting your whole life energy to it, the only way you can do that is not view people lovingly as objects.

[14:47]

You can love people, but not as objects. So this love or this dedication to benefiting people works really well if there's no people there for you. If there's nobody out there. And you're totally devoted to these people who aren't out there. You're totally devoted to these beings who you can't actually grasp as other than yourself. This is the way. You don't gain or lose. In that way, the bodhisattva doesn't get tired. Even though it's an every moment affair. You can do it all day long, 24 hours a day, through your dreaming even. you can be working to benefit others completely if you don't think they're out there. Yeah. Do you have that there are no people or that there are people? I have without concern that there be no people. Do you want to enjoy the difference between those two things?

[15:47]

I don't think that it seemed like one way was pointing at Well, they pointed two different burdens, one being the thought, there are no people, there are no people. The other being, there are people, there are people. So they both seem like one emphasizes each of those burdens, but then those could be a burden for them. I thought this might be totally the other so you said which is again. I I Didn't quite get it well if you're laboring either Under the apprehension that there is somebody or if you're laboring under the apprehension that there is nobody right both were those are both burdens, right? So let's go so we're out we're without concern that there is or isn't either way but The bodhisattva vow, in some sense, originally seems to be founded on the fact that you're concerned that there are other people, right? That's where it starts. You're concerned that there are other people, and also you're concerned that there's you.

[16:50]

That's where it sort of starts, and you want to help people, right? But it says that you should exert the law to the fullest, and when you exert the law to the fullest, you go beyond your original motivation of helping others as somebody out there. And then you're not concerned with when you started that there were, that doesn't bother you anymore. And also you're not bothered by the fact that now you realize there aren't, or there isn't. Isn't the same true about the law? The same is true of the law, definitely. Namely? That it's not separate from the situation. The law is not separate from the situation, right. There's no ultimate absolute law. It's also dependently co-produced. Right. Yeah. What's translated as the law here, is that Dharma? Yeah. Okay. So then here comes a nice statement.

[17:54]

For this, it's necessary to have a ruthless ability to snap a wooden pillar in two. So that's kind of an unusual way of talking, but does that make some sense to anybody? Yeah, one person. Three, four, five, six. But a smaller number of people say yes to this than to the other sentences. Well, I wonder whether... I know you don't know, but what is it? Just say the answer. To my question. To your question. Or was that your answer? No, they just didn't want to raise their hands. They didn't want to raise their hands? Yeah. Okay. Why didn't you want to raise your hands this time? I really don't know. You don't understand that one? No. But the other ones make more sense?

[18:55]

Yeah. Okay. Ask us again. What did I ask? Did I ask if it made sense? Does that make sense? Oh, hope not to hope. Okay, now, what could it possibly mean to snap a wooden pillar in two? Does anybody have a wooden pillar on them? Would it be, if you're helping somebody, you do something that looks like it's hurting them, but it's really in their best interest to taking away support like taking away a crutch Taking away a crutch might be an example of tough love.

[19:57]

Yeah, stand up and walk. Well, actually, supports, you know, the wooden pillar might be like a support, a structural support in a temple. And by snapping it, you might just bring down the whole structure. Of the temple. Of the temple. Or a wooden pillar might be a person who got stuck and turned to wood. Might be with me. Does that have what you're saying? No, that's not what I was saying. You said what you said. Namely, you said that you might have to do something that didn't look like it was helpful in order to be helpful. Right. And is that what you're saying? You might have to destroy the temple in order to really help. It's a very uncomfortable thing to do, but it might be extremely helpful. We might have to destroy Zen Center in order to make Zen Center a little Zen Center. Wouldn't that be inconvenient? Hopefully nobody would get hurt. Everybody should get out of the buildings before we're aired and done.

[20:58]

Yeah, we don't want anybody to get hurt, but you might have to do that. Wouldn't that be something? Would there be any other way? We should talk to the board first. You're not snapping. You're not snapping. Not snapping. Not ruthless enough. That wouldn't be snapping. If we check with the board before we do it, we will not go down in Zen history books. A bunch of monks got together and decided that the only way to carry on the true Buddha Dharma would be to destroy the meditation hall. but unfortunately they hesitated. Went to the board of directors first. And they were voted down. Still, the temple still stands, but there's no Zen there. Or I should say, the temple still stands and it's full of Zen.

[21:59]

Okay, so... Uh-oh. When about to go, then what? So we're... I don't think... What? I don't feel like we're quite done with that lesson. I mean, if this is so, what we've been saying here, it sounds like an idea. I mean, it sounds like it's in opposition to what we just decided in the first part's about to me. You follow? No. Well, tell us. Well, if you cut the pillar to take out the support, you think you're going to be doing some good. Maybe. This is kind of what we were just saying. You wouldn't have to think so, though. You could just do it. You could just do it. In your thing, you wouldn't have to think that, would you? You wouldn't have to think you were doing something that didn't look helpful. You do it, but it's helpful. Yeah, you don't necessarily think it's helpful.

[23:06]

I guess. Or you can do it just because you want to do it. No. I would think about it. No, you might think about it, but when you thought about it, you wouldn't necessarily think, oh, this is helpful. You might not think that. You might think it, but you wouldn't have to, would you? Doesn't mean the same thing as the previous set of stuff. Which one? If you are concerned for law to the fullest without considering that there'd be people, you would also be concerned for law without concern for the pillar or destruction. The pillar is the law. It's not that you're not concerned for the pillar. It's not that you're not concerned for people. You are concerned for people. But above that is the exertion of the Dharma. No, most important is exertion of Dharma, but exertion of Dharma is exactly the same as being concerned for people. Okay? It doesn't say you're not concerned for people. It says you're not concerned that there be no people. Okay? It's not that you're not concerned for pillars.

[24:11]

We love pillars. It's just that you're not concerned that there be no pillars. Like, for example, let's say you found out somebody said, boss, there be no pillars. It would not bother you. This would be okay if there were no pillars. There's no people. This is not a problem. However, we are dedicated to pillars and people. We take care of them. We are concerned for them, okay? Right? Yes, okay? I read this as a concentration of energy, of concentration of the truth to be able to do something. Fully. Yeah. So it's not taking apart support. It's almost like a martial art punch. Just clean, full effort. Pass it right through the post. We have to do that cleanly. And that effort is, so it seems like more of an effort direction than an object. Okay. It's more of an effort direction than an object.

[25:14]

Well, the support of the post for all these different things, I don't think the post is secondary to the ruthless ability to do something, to do a snapback. Yeah, the ruthless ability to do something cleanly. And what's that ability to do something cleanly? What is that? Right effort. Right effort. For that concern. without concern, without wish, without object, without gaining idea. This is called a clean cut. And, of course, you have to be concentrated because you can't have little splits and splats of your life energy someplace else. A little bit of non-participation in this clean cut makes it not a clean cut. It makes it not a total dedication to benefiting bees.

[26:15]

It means you're holding back a little bit. Yes? What I appreciate is it made me think of when we left home and we apparently took this route. Yeah. And having us back to having the strength. Yeah, it has that awesomeness. But Anthony, what's your bone there that you're picking? OK, so taking Tesla's example, someone might interpret your action as ruthless. And here it says, for this it is necessary to have the ruthless ability. So what is ruthless about this ability? Well, what does ruthless mean? What does that mean, sir? Without concern? It's not a story.

[27:15]

I was wondering, what's a rumor? That is a concern. It may not be as negative when applied to Dharma. No compromise. No compromise. Non-twine the cat. Non-twine the cat. How do you mean? Do you think it violates conventional vision, conventional truth? I think it could be said to violate. It could be said to violate. Do you think it does violate? No. Good. Okay, then, I'm about to go.

[28:20]

What? Now, this story, did I tell you this story? Rinzai, Linji, he's about to die, right? In this story. So, he's about to go. But also, to meet him, we should be about to go. So it's good to ask one about to go, and then there's a story. It seems like the notion of stamping the pillar in two is like a vision risking all. And maybe the story is like an exercise in risking off at the very last moment. That's ruthless. So, let's see, where?

[29:58]

I asked last week about, his story is about the treasury of eyes of truth. Right? And I asked you, what is, you know, what are the eyes? And Diane said the eyes are DCA. You people maybe don't know this word. It's called dependent co-arising. Dependent co-arising means that everything that appears, appears through causes and conditions. And what appears is something that has co-arisen interdependently. So the I, all these I's are examples of dependent co-arising. Where is the I in this story? for you? Where is the I in the story? Where in the story is there the pinnacle rising for you? Which question?

[31:08]

At the beginning? There's two questions, right? Isn't it just a sort of whole succession of dependent co-arising? I mean, not just one. That's right. Everything is dependent co-arising. What is dependent co-arising? That's right. It's not the question. What? It's not the question. It's his first statement. His first statement. After I pass on, I'll destroy it. That's the I for you? That's the dependent co-horizon that you can feel? That seems to be the case. It leads to the dependent co-horizon. Yes? The I is about to die. About to die is the I. Now, are people following this? This isn't about pie, and does it make any sense to you, Hope? This isn't about pie?

[32:14]

Huh? What? Tell us about it. What is it? Are you asking for what part of the story that we identify with? That's one way to put it. Which part of the story do you identify with? Which part of the story grabs you? That's I in both senses, the letter I in E-Y-E. Dependent co-arising is what grabs us. Yeah. Isn't it the treasury? That seems to be the first real reason. I'd have been mistaken. Treasury. Treasury. Okay. What are the I's? Linji. Linji. Maybe there was a Linji. The actual status of Linji is the I. Yeah, I'm referring back to the earlier statement as to whether there are people saved or not.

[33:24]

Okay. Okay. So have you found out yet? Well, I say no. Before we go, is there a John? Well, yes and no, but no. For the sake of the story, there is. A name on a page that makes the story work, whether that's talking about the non-existence of Jeet Bode as far as the Bodhisattva doctrine, doesn't mean that in this particular context. Without a name on there, we wouldn't have a story to talk about. What's the name on there? What's that? Yeah, but what is that? The teacher and the student. What is that? Is it... Is that the first part of the covenant?

[34:24]

The first part? Well, yeah. What? Well, for me, it's treachery is told. You can do what that stands, okay? But we're back on Linji now. What's Linji? Oh, come on. See, that's what he did. He put it back on Linji. So now, what is Linjin? For him, what was it? For him, it was, first of all, it was an eye, right? For him, it was a dependent co-arising. It was a dependent co-arising in the sense of, what kind of relationship does he have with that word? And you're saying, well, as a word, it's there. You're saying it's there, right? He said, when I said, well, Linji, he said, no. But that doesn't mean that that's different from you saying that there's some writing on that page.

[35:26]

Okay? And what is that writing on the page? Something of a dependent co-arising, right? Dependent co-arising does not exist and does not not exist. When he asked about, when he chose that place, I asked him, he has that response. If he thinks that response has any reality or any substance, then he's got a problem. But you didn't say he believed that... You didn't say that, did you? I didn't say it, but I have a tendency to believe it. Yeah, well, we all do, but... Then that's our problem. But you can answer that question without having that tendency, too. But that's good that we know that we have that tendency. Tendency is one thing. The no is another thing. And the no and the linji, those two are dependent co-arising. And the tendency to believe that no is not dependent co-arising, although that co-arises, that is the imagination that dependent co-arising things have substance.

[36:39]

Okay, so you have treasury, you have about to die, you have . Yes? I have blind ass. Blind ass, yeah. I vote for blind ass. Free blind ass. Okay, what else? Yeah, there's another one. I like that one. She doesn't like being blind. Huh? I said she didn't like being blind. She didn't like being blind? I would like to say something. Go ahead. Maybe you could say... You came late. What's your name? Dennis. Dennis. Dependent co-arising is the Buddha's battle cry. in the journey to overcome self-clinging.

[37:49]

Dependent co-arising is identical with emptiness. And everything is empty and there is a constant production of things that don't exist. The first one what? The first one you didn't understand? Well, I think someone else could repeat it. Dependent core rising is the Buddha's battle cry in the fight against ignorance? Self-clinging.

[38:57]

Self-clinging. Self-clinging. Self-clinging. Blind ass. Okay. So, blind ass. Self-clinging. Self-clinging. So there it is. The dependent core rising is Buddha's slogan, Buddha's battle cry. Dependent core rising is cry... to overcome self-clinging. Dependent co-arising means this thing that has just arisen as it is, is empty. This thing that just appears is just light and overcomes any clinging. Parish? It means die. What? You mean the commentary? Oh. Oh, perish. Yeah, he said perish. See, Linji is about to go and about to die.

[39:58]

Then what? Okay. And then this story is when Linji was about to perish. Suddenly he sank, perished again at the bottom. Yeah, I like the shout. For me, that's the eye. I'm not saying that's the right answer, by the way. The eye, this story could have hundreds of eyes for each one of you, or it could have zero eyes for some of you, which would be very sad, but that sometimes happens. If you're honest, you might not be able to find an eye on the page. An eye means it's got something to work with. Yeah. Or my body. My. Yeah, my body of glory, too. Right? You know, that bothers you, that means it may be, that's where your eye is. They don't like Linji saying, my Donna, right? My treasury.

[40:59]

Right, so that my, what, that eye. It needs to be with the rest of the story. Well, whatever you say, anyway, the point is you're bothered. What is it, how are you bothered? What bothers you? Something there, you've got something, right, to work with. What is that bother? It's audacious. It's an audacious way of talking. What is audacious? Getting older. It's not something that any one person can own. That's right. So he can't own it, can he? So why does he talk that way? He's a blind ass. Because of dependent co-arising. Huh? Because of dependent co-arising. Because of dependent co-arising? Dependent co-arising. Maya co-arising. Oh, yeah, the Maya rises by dependent co-arising, but the feeling, then in relationship to that, there's something else which co-arises with that Maya, and that is some problem in Gloria and Dorothy.

[42:06]

There's two other dependent co-arisings which are not on the page, right? Their problem with this is they're not on the page. Does that make sense? Where are they? Where are those problems? I thought the story... I thought part of the story was why he shouted because he can't take my interpreted as self. He can't. Well, maybe you didn't have a problem with my. Maybe that's just where you saw the I. That's what I mean. Well, Gloria had a problem with my. So that mind was not on the page. Sorry, I confused you. I mixed you with Gloria. So you didn't necessarily have a problem with mind. No, I thought that was the problem with the story. That's the pivot for you. Yeah. The mind there. I mean, to the extent that I understand. So, yeah. Well, you start at some point, you know.

[43:07]

And most people, I think most people, if they just keep looking, you can find an actual sharp little place that you can get a hold of or that gets a hold of you. Did you ask why he said that? Why did he say that? Did I ask? No, I didn't. Did you want to tell us? Didn't you ask why he would say something like this? I don't remember. Did I ask that? Did anybody hear me ask that? I almost never use that word, but... It doesn't work anyway. Okay. Why did Lingyi sit here? He's testing. He's testing. Is he testing or is he blowing it? Is he testing or blowing it?

[44:10]

Well, he's about to perish. Yeah. He's about to blow it. But he's talking as he goes. As if he wants to ask, yes? Yes? No, I'm done. That was sort of an eye for me because I was just thinking, are your teachers dying, right? Well, you're dying. You're with your student. I imagine there's this strong temptation to get messy. But instead, these guys are being ruthless with each other. That's pretty striking. Now that, imagine shouting at your rickety old teacher. I'm deaf. That's very doorstep. Now, in the commentary on this, you know, there was another Zen story of the great Zen master Matsu, horse master, and he once yelled at the other great Zen master, Baijian, so loudly that Baijian was deaf for three days.

[45:24]

And it says here that Since that time, since that shout that Matsu made at Bajang, since that time, there have been no shouts that can compare to this shout by Sanshun. What's so hot about this shout? One thing, it was immediate without hesitation. It was immediate. He immediately shouted. That makes it hot. Can you say that again, please? No, I'm getting it. It's not on the tape. I know, it's right. I want this to be recorded. For posterity? Oh, sorry. Oh, she's putting this up on the posterity instead. I thought it brought down the temple. Huh? It brought down the temple. Yeah. Yeah. Now here's a little historic, this is completely a useless comment I'm about to make, but I just want you, just so you know you learned something here tonight.

[46:30]

At the next page, the top of the next page, it says, in that time, the style of the House of Linji naturally had the true imperative. What a pity to let it go. Now on the surface of it, It looks like what he's saying is that this school, this Linji school, at that time of the story, they had the true imperative. That style of yelling and shouting had the true imperative. True imperative, I look at the word imperative. Imperative means to command, to insist, to be urgent. The true urgent command. That school had a thing when they yelled. The Rinzai yelled all the time. These people feel that this yell of Shanshan was the greatest yell.

[47:36]

Even greater than his teacher's yells. At that time, they had it. in this yelling. After that, people sometimes feel they kept yelling and kept yelling and kept hitting, and they kind of lost the true imperative, the true command by the successive generations. But here now, they feel we're being told by our ancestors, Soto Zen ancestors, that this Rinzai people at this time, at the time of Rinzai founding, they had the true imperative by just shouting. Now, I don't particularly want to spend a lot of time trying to guess what happens after that, but just to say that at this point we're being told that this is a great shout. This is a great shout. This is a living shout. This is a shout of the true command of the Buddha Dharma. What's the shout about? What is the true imperative? What is the true command? Okay, anything else on this case?

[48:56]

You understand how to be Bodhisattvas now? Yes, just that Bai Zhang's comment on that, speaking to the students later, he said something to the effect that bringing up Mats's shot, he said that this is no small matter. We have a few minutes more.

[50:07]

What more can we derive from this story? We haven't got to the verse yet, but from the story so far, what more can we derive from it to help people? What more can you derive from this story to help your daily life? literally put on a trip on the story. And I don't know if it hurts anyone to think about it at all. The theme of the story might be that when he's setting up the collusion, he's very stately, that gets his treasury, that there is a treasury to be destroyed. And then, it shows us that science shows us that it's fine.

[51:10]

It's a little short question of how they are destroyed with the teacher's treasury. He's going along with the possessive and the initial statement. And then the teacher tests him again and says, well, how do you reply to someone who questions you about that? And he doubles his delusion. There's a sense of double delusion in the story. They're all awake. They're all awake. They have to blind-ass the reason. The ass is the first level of delusion, which is the animal, which is stupid. And the blind-ass is a mass that can't even seem to do its work and do what it's supposed to be doing. And so there's a quality of setting up delusion. Then we're having delusion come back to you when there's a question, and then responding back to the delusion we have. It's like creating more delusion. This is what we do all the time normally. What does that look like? So how does that encourage you in your day and night?

[52:12]

To try to see delusion as a reality. It encourages you to be mindful of? Of everything. Of everything? And what is everything? Experiencing or a scarce horizon experience arising This story actually encourages you to do that absolutely Wow That's good Does anybody else encourage to do that by the start? So why did they go to all this trouble why did you just tell you to be mindful? Would that there's been would that have been as encouraging as a story I? Because they're doing it their way. They're having a good time. Hey, they're doing it their way, right. They get bored. They said that actually several times already, be mindful. You know, for 20, 30, 40 years, these guys did Zazen instruction, right?

[53:15]

People come, they say, be mindful, be mindful. This is when they're playing. This is when the teacher's about to die. They're not giving beginner Zazen instruction anymore. They're like saying, be mindful. They're saying, let's do it our way. That's good. Let's do it our way. You're going to die. This is your last chance, boss. And there's a big shout right here in my chest, right here in my heart. Big shout. But I'm not going to do it. But it's a big shout. It's like a flower that's not open, you know? It's like, but any minute this flower can open. You know what I mean? And when I put it in the vase, I'm going to put it in just before it's ready to open. And it's got this big, huge shout of, you know, be mindful of dependent co-arising. Just be mindful of dependent co-arising.

[54:17]

It's got that big shout. That big battle cry. This is dependent co-arising, folks. Whatever it is, all day long. And it's identical with emptiness, and that's the Buddha's teaching. That's the way to free yourself from suffering. Big shout. But Sanchang did it, and I never could match it, probably, so I'll keep quiet. You can get a shout. Let's hear it. Well, my feeling is... That's right. There's kindness. That's right. That's right. Express yourself. Biggest question, sir.

[55:42]

Who is Lin Chi's blind ass? Is it Sanchen or Lin Chi himself? It's Sanchen. How do you know that? No. That's my goal. And you can say no to my goal any time. No problem. You can even yell at my goal. Yes? This shout also, to me, was the gift. He shot this shout as a gift. I believe that. It's the gift that keeps on giving. It's the gift that shows you cared enough to send Laverie back. And I really think we've all got that shout in our head. a shout to our friends, a shout to ourself.

[56:42]

And when your friend shouts to you that way, you're so pleased, you love that your friend so much that all you can do is say something like, you blind ass. Because no compliment could possibly reach it. So you have to sort of go around and insult them. At least that's what the Tom Dines did, they had to do that. Maybe now we can say, gee, that was really good. So when you said that, I suddenly had this image that is, as Lynn Shee said, the two of them fell in worried laughter. Two of them. One of them died. Two fell over and one got up. Okay, now. Huh? It doesn't say that? I'll show you a different version. There is another. It says here, doesn't it? I think he's a bot. He didn't die. I think. I'll check it. I'm doing the look. Okay, now we didn't finish this.

[58:02]

We still have the verse to do. So, why don't you study the verse? And we'll start with the verse next time, okay? And then we'll go on to case 14, which is... Case 14 is... Well, what should we do? Do you wanna start studying case 14 next time? What we're gonna do is next time you bring case 14, We'll start case 14, but we'll also do the first on this one first.

[59:05]

Okay? So please continue this practice of finding the I in this story and see if you can use that I as the I. But then start with that I. Take that I that you have. whatever eye or eyes you want to use, and take that eye to the verse, and study the verse with that eye. And then maybe each person will have a different eye to look at the verse, and we can find out what your eyes saw, what your eyes, where your eyes took you in the verse. Of course, you can read the commentary, too. Does that make sense as a homework assignment? Hmm? And then after we do that, we'll start case 14 next time. All right?

[59:56]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_80.22