enact or, I don't know if dramatize is quite the right word, this little story that's in the case here. I heard you were coming, Galen. Is that true, that you actually came here? I thought your stepdaughter was going to bring your cardinal. This is a story that has four parts and I think it would be good to have a narrator. Does anybody want to be the narrator? Okay.

[01:05]

Would you sit over there, please? And then there's a part for the teacher. Who wants to be the teacher? It's an easy part. Maya? You can stay there, I think. Okay. This is your script, Pat. And then there's a part for the head monk. Who wants to play the part of the head monk? Okay. And then there's a part for, the headman's called the shiso, which means number one seat.

[02:07]

And there's a part for the number three seat. Anybody want to play the part of number three seat? And then there's a part for the dumb student, but I got that. Okay, so, I go to the teacher. I have three names. My name is... My Buddhist name is Jir Yuran. Later, I will become a Zen master, and they will call me Great Master Yan Hua. but now I'm a studying monk in the congregation, and my name is Jir Yon.

[03:20]

This monk's name is, he's a third seat, but he is actually the main character in this case. And his name is... His name is Shouzhen. No. Oh. Yeah. Shouzhen is his name. And he will later be known as the Zen master Jingua. And the head monk is just known as the head monk. We don't know the head monk's name. Remember, head monk. And the master's name is Bao Tzu. Okay? This is the master, Bao Tzu, over here.

[04:26]

This is the third seat in the monk's hall. Shou Jun, who is the huo guo of this case. And I... I will be a hukua someday, too, after I succeed him. Now my name is Jiryuan, and his name is Sochen, but we won't say anybody's names. In this case, we'll just refer to teacher, first seat, and third seat. So I go to the teacher and I say, what is the Buddha nature of True dustness. Who doesn't have it? And then nearby, the head monk says to me, later, Do you understand what the teacher said when you questioned him just then?

[05:36]

Could you hear him? No. The teacher was so compassionate. Why don't you understand? Who does not have Buddha nature of true dustness? Even all those born in the four ways, in the six dispositions, all are fully endowed. Thanks for explaining it for me. This old guy not only has no eyes himself, he goes on to blind others. What was the leading monk talking about? Before I didn't understand and he explained it for me. He told me that beings born in the four ways, you know, like egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, and spontaneously born, or into the six paths, like human realm, animal realm, hungry ghost realm, heavenly realm, hell realm, and they're all fully endowed with it.

[06:58]

Elder, Buddhism is not this principle. If you don't believe me, ask the teacher in the hall. Yangua went up to the hall and told all about his previous understanding. Lao-Chi also said Buddhism is not this principle. Yangua said The third seated monk also didn't agree. So he told me to come back and ask you. I hope you will be compassionate as to settle this thoroughly for me. Bow, she said. Where's the monk in the third seat? Yanwa went down and bowed and asked Jingwa who said. Wait a second, wait a second.

[08:03]

I go back down and bow and I tell him everything that just happened, right? And I say that the teacher sent me to ask you... Just ask. What is the Buddha nature of true thusness? Who has it? At these words, Yanhua realized enlightenment. He bowed again in gratitude and then said... Whether you remain... in the crowd or appear in the world as a teacher, I pledge myself to assist you." Later, he actually succeeded Jingua as abbot of Yiguang. So did that story follow?

[09:08]

Did it float? Is that okay this time? Any comments about it, or anybody have any questions they'd like to ask about it? I would like him to repeat what his explanation is, so that I can see what was so wrong with him. So, the teacher said, I asked the teacher, what is the Buddha nature of true investments? The teacher says, who doesn't have it? And then he asked me if I understood, right? And I said, no. And then he said, who does not have Buddha nature of true justness, even all those born in the four ways and the six dispositions, all are fully endowed. The teacher said, who doesn't have it?

[10:17]

And the number one monk explained that who doesn't have it means nobody doesn't, nobody, there's nobody who doesn't have it. Which is, you know, a, what do you call it, a teaching that is in the scriptures, that there's nobody who doesn't fully possess, even beings in hell, fully possess the Buddha nature of true dustness. Even beings in heaven, even human beings, hungry ghosts, animal people, human beings or beings in animal realm, they all fully possess it. Was there an implication in the monk asking this question that she had an idea that there was true dustness or not? Is that what was sort of, and therefore the answer, who doesn't have it, sort of to put it back to the muck?

[11:26]

I think that implication is there, yes. Yes. If the answer of the first monk was misleading or incorrect, what was it? Get the answer of the head monk? You mean the explanation? Well, the teacher just said, who doesn't have it? One meaning of who doesn't have it is, well, who doesn't have it? Everybody has it. How could there be anybody who doesn't have it? That's one meaning of it. Another meaning of it, who are the people who don't have it? Another meaning of it is, what is it that doesn't have it? Rather than which person doesn't have it, what is it that doesn't have it? But another question is just, what is it? what is the true nature?

[12:40]

As Sonja said, just throw the question back. What is the Buddha nature of true dustness by saying, who doesn't have it? So you're not saying that people do have it or don't have it by that question. You're saying, who doesn't have it? The monk just asked, what is the Buddha nature of true dustness? And the teacher responded to the question of what is it in terms of the meaning of The meaning he's pointing to in relationship to the question of what is it is who has it or who doesn't have it. So rather than explaining what it is, he chooses to put the question towards somebody, towards a person. He's personalizing it in a way. But not personalizing in the sense of saying every person has it or every person doesn't have it.

[13:45]

He could say, you know, whatever it is, it's something that people don't have, that they can't possess. Or he could say, you know, he could explain what is the nature. He could show the way people have it or the way people are related to it. He could have also said something about it that has nothing to do with people. He could have said vast. He could have said it penetrates everywhere. He could have said many things. But he brought it back to who doesn't have it. And in particular, some person was asking him, and he asked this person who doesn't have it. Was it because of that person who was asking him? Yeah, well, that was part of what was going on. Yeah, so that person asked him. When I thought about it, about who doesn't have it, if I held it, if I held it long enough, it seemed that if you go through that, you kind of come back to the second answer, which is who had it.

[14:55]

It's kind of like a circle. Yeah, right. That... the monk being asked who doesn't have it and walking away and not understanding what it was about, maybe could have set himself, could have been set up for who has it. Who doesn't have it can set up who has it. But this other monk intervened and made it into what this means is that everybody has it. he kind of like watered down the question in a way. And then the other monk said, this is not the principle of Buddhism, this response of, you know, all beings have it, even though it is a Buddhist teaching that all beings have it. However, the way, you know, this particular quote, this famous quote,

[16:03]

all beings without exception have the Buddha nature. There's a quote like that, a very famous quote. When Dogen reads that, he reads it as, instead of all beings without exception have Buddha nature, he reads it as all beings, whole being, because the word for being and having, same Chinese character. So, all beings... Without exception, have, Buddha nature, could be read all beings. And the without exception combined with have could be called whole being. Without exception and have can be read as whole being or total being. Does that make sense? Character for without exception means total or all. And being can also mean half. So you can read it without exception, have, or whole being.

[17:09]

So all beings, whole being, Buddha nature. That's another way to read. Instead of reading it that Buddha nature is something that all beings have, you can read it as all beings, whole being, Buddha nature. But there's not, you know, the have... The verb have, when you read it that way, is not standing up by itself. It's almost like three equal things. All being, whole being, Buddha nature. So you could read it all beings, whole being is Buddha nature, but really it says all beings, whole being, Buddha nature. And the question, what is the Buddha nature of true dasanas, I don't think necessarily the monk, the way the monk was, was implying that he was putting the Buddha nature into some category.

[18:11]

But the teacher's response, regardless of what the monk's position was, could have been the way it was. In other words, he could still say whether the monk was doing that or not just to test him. Because I don't think necessarily the Zen teacher sees the person's thing and puts them in the box of putting things in the box. Rather just trying to find out who he is, he says, who doesn't have it? You want to know what it is? Who doesn't have it? In other words, he could have just been opening up the question to this big dimension of whole being. And then this monk narrowed it down to over on the side of Buddha nature is something you have. And it's wonderful, all beings have it.

[19:14]

All beings individually have it. And... But that's not the principle of Buddhism. Buddhism is not just saying all beings have the Buddha nature. There's some kind of resistance there, some kind of dynamic there. Yes? It seems like one side is having or not having, but then the other side is just who, like, who are you? Kind of, where are you? Two other things. One was in the response of who doesn't have it, it seemed to me that that was the tendency to look out there or look outside. And to bring it back on the other side, which was to say who has it, was to pull it in with a point there. I could see it that way, but I could see it the other way too.

[20:19]

I could see that if I was asked who doesn't have it, I might look inward to see who doesn't have it. But, again, who doesn't have it could be taken as a positive statement, could be taken as just saying the same thing again, namely, all beings have it. It goes both ways. It could be read both ways. Of asking the monk who is the person who doesn't have it, please tell me who doesn't have it, or I could be telling the monk that there's nobody who doesn't have it. But the other possibility is he wasn't telling the monk that nobody doesn't have it, the way the first monk read it, but he also wasn't asking the monk to tell him who doesn't have it. He was actually saying, you know, find out what it means for yourself, don't ask me. There's another part, which was another way to ask, who's asking?

[21:20]

Yeah, it's also saying, who's asking? Or, who are you? Or, what is it that's just come here and asked me a question? It's also the teacher's way of saying, who am I? The teacher's asking himself, who am I? When the people come to ask questions, the teacher says, who am I? By asking, who doesn't have it? By testing the waters over there, the teacher finds out who he is. So really he's trying to find out who he is by that question. Because when we meet people, if we have any assumptions about who they are, that's really just an assumption about ourself. Therefore it's good to ask questions to find out who they are beyond our assumptions and therefore find out who we are beyond our assumptions. So really Zen teachers are actually trying to find out who they are by trying to find out who their students are.

[22:27]

Because that's what they're supposed to be doing, they're supposed to be modeling finding out who... studying the self. And the way they model studying the self is by asking other people questions about themselves. Don't you think so? Even though you never saw such a person? Yes? Is this principle any different from the case of the god of fire comes seeking fire? Is which principle? Is this principle different? Is this issue that's raised here, who doesn't have it, who does have it? OK. Offhand, I don't see a difference. Who wants to know?

[23:35]

You know what? That didn't upset my assumptions. Is your hand? How's your hand? It's pretty good. What Buddha nature, and Dustin's, I thought it was interesting that he said Buddha nature, rather than Dharma nature or science, is sort of bringing it into the realm of who, you know, Buddha. And then the response is, well, who doesn't have it? It makes sense in the sense of it's responsive to bringing up the question of particularization to the Dharma people. I thought what the teacher did was bring up the question of possession to be considered in regards to Buddha nature.

[24:46]

Who doesn't have it? brings up the question of having or not having, or neither, for discussion. So now you've all heard, at least by rumor, that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature. which I guess to some people would be good news, but... The whole thing was a way of avoiding embarrassment. I mean, it was sort of embarrassing when he didn't really know, and he's told something he didn't understand it, but in the end it was just kind of like,

[25:57]

I almost read into the last question, when he says, who has this, like, what's up? There was no higher or lower. There was no person knowing who had it, who doesn't have it, or nobody asking, who didn't really understand it. It was just these two people who walked in, like, hey. Like when someone calls your name, you go, huh? There's a breaking through, so it has to be in the case itself. To tell you the truth, I don't disagree with it. But in the context of what I say to you, I hear somebody tell you something which I think is kind of narrowing your range of what you're considering. And I tell you, that's not really what Buddhism is about. And I say, if you don't believe me, go ask the teacher.

[27:00]

And you go and you tell the teacher, and the teacher says, yeah, that's right. That's the way the monk, the way the head monk narrowed it. is not the principle of Buddhism. So go back and ask the one who showed you that it was narrow. When you come back to me now, And there is some kind of thing going on now, because I just told you that this other guy narrowed the teacher's teaching, and I asked you to go back and check it out with the teacher, and the teacher confirmed what I said. So you're coming back to me, and you come back and you bow to me and ask me a question. So that's in the background of maybe, then I think you could say that maybe he says, what's up? But it's in the context of me saying that the head monk was blinding me, trying to blind you.

[28:04]

and asking you to go confirm my judgment with the teacher, the teacher confirms it now and sends you back to me to talk to me more, and you bow to me and ask me for instruction, then I may say what you say, but there's already a hierarchy, which may make it even more effective if what you say is true, or not true, but in the situation you describe of leveling it with a what's up, it's in the context that it really has its well, in that context it would have that dynamic of difference of level and not difference of level. So the teacher who narrowed it, is the one he went back to? No. The head monk narrowed the teacher's who doesn't have it to the meaning that everybody's got it. which is one side of the story.

[29:08]

It's that side of the story of the dynamic we talked about last week of the great way is vast, but what's the hurry? What's the rush? The other side is there's not much time, so... And then the third-seeded monk... who will eventually become this monk's teacher and who is the main character, who is the foie gras of this case. He's a third-seated monk. He hears what the first monk said and tells this other monk that... You know, what he already said, he said he's blinding people. So we have here, and I thought it was also nice at the end where he said, whether you stay in the crowd or go off and appear on your own as a teacher.

[30:16]

Nice image of that, in the crowd. In the crowd of some of these Zen teachers were these enlightened monks, enlightening each other. In this particular case, the enlightening process had, in a sense, had to do with one monk asking a teacher a question, another monk, two other monks watching, well actually a whole group of monks probably watching, but the head monk taking some initiative to clarify the situation, and he narrowed what happened. And the young monk went along with the narrowing and said, thanks for explaining it to me. But another monk saw that it was being narrowed and intervened and said, no, he's kind of narrowed it. This is not the principle in Buddhism to narrow it into that alternative. Go back and ask the teacher again. And he goes back and comes back again.

[31:19]

So that may be an indication of something healthy to do in the Sangha. is to watch when a student asks a teacher a question. But that's because it's not really any good or bad. I mean, that's just using what happens. Then it's not a question of good or bad. Who knows if that's good or bad? Just ask me. Is it good or bad? Loaded with opinions. Who knows if that's good or bad? Well, does it really matter? Well, yeah, there's good and bad. I think does it really matter is a little different than who knows if it's good or bad. A little different thing. Well, you're using that as to what does... But who knows if it's good or bad if it's different? Good or bad is the consequence of a good or bad, kind of what you're talking about in the area.

[32:28]

If you do this, does good or bad come from it, right? No, right away, is it? Yeah, that's what you're talking about. See, the Dalai Lama, when he was in Berkeley years ago, they worried about him because he would fly around in an airplane with his entire entourage. And they said, my gosh, if that plane crashes, it'll all get wiped out. They all should go in separate airplanes, you know, have this like fleet of airplanes. And he said, well, It doesn't matter. It was a small matter. This little signal means that you should stop talking. Do I take directions? No, you don't have to take directions, but I do. Because who knows if it's good or bad? So if you'd like, we could go over and do a religious ceremony, which we don't know if it's good or bad.

[33:32]

Some people say it's good. Have you heard about that? They say it's good to take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Some other people, a lot of people think it's bad. I've heard it's wholesome. Some people think it's wholesome. But anyway, who knows if it's good or bad, but I... Is that the schedule? I thought... May I, can I hand that card back, please? Yes. Well, do you want to keep it? Yes. Okay, you can keep it and you can use it. Thank you. You can use it at will. Would you like yours back? Okay. Let's see. You're the first monk, right? Congratulations. Do you want yours back? He's got a ways to go. You got enough books? Yeah.

[34:22]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_84.64