So shall we read this short case? A Zen monk named Feng Shui said, if you set up a single atom, the nation flourishes. If you don't set up a single atom, the nation perishes. held up his staff and said, are there any mendicants who will die the same and live the same? That's the case. Oh, and by the way, last week, somehow people were thinking that this was like the third or fourth class. Actually, there's a surprising thing about November.

[01:05]

It has five Mondays in it. And this is the fifth point. And we had one meeting. Six. Six. Just a second. I was mistaken. November has six Mondays in it. Even more Mondays. No, November has five. And we had one meeting in October, right? Yeah. So this is the sixth meeting. So this is the sixth meeting. So really it is. This is the last meeting. So I was surprised myself. But this is the sixth. If you want to have some kind of a party or something on the 20th of December, you're going to come. It's on, you know, a koan party.

[02:07]

Who's that? Does this mean we don't all gather here next Monday night? This is the last class. A combination of those three things. I mean, there won't be a class that won't be made. But if you're, you know, if you're lonesome and you want to come hang out with some people, there'll be a gang of people over here. Sitting in his handbook. Sensation. Sensation's name. Are you going to continue in January with the response? Yes. And I think we'll continue with this case, too.

[03:10]

I know that I'm sitting by, she surprised me. So I kind of... Should I just say some stuff, or do you want to just get into a right-of-work discussion? Right. OK, let's talk about that. So what's happening here is that in this collection, this case 34 of the Book of Serenity, this case is actually lifted, in a sense, out of the Bluquith record. I mean, it's the same case as in the Blue Cliff Record number 361. And so what the compiler of this set of stories did is he took the story, just like it is in the Blue Cliff Record, and put it in this book.

[04:23]

However, the man who compiled the Blue Cliff Record, what he did is he pulled, he kind of excerpted the story from the record of Feng Shui. and the record is from Sway, it says this longer version here. So Swaydu, see, Swaydu is the compiler of the booklet record, and so he brings up the stories where it says in the record, it's what Swaydu says is the The old peasants do not unfurrow their brows. This talk is not quoted completely in the record. So here's what he said in the record. If a single Adam is set up, the nation flourishes and the peasants frown.

[05:28]

If you do not set up a single Adam, the nation perishes and the peasants rest easy. If you can clearly understand here, you have no separate part. It's all this old monk me. It's all this old monk me, is that what it says? I'm just you. You and I can enlighten everyone in the world and can also delude everyone in the world. Do you want to know you? Slapping his left side, here it is. Do you want to know me? Slapping his right side, here it is. So that's what it says in the record of his life, his life record. So Suede comes along and pulls out part of that story, quotes it.

[06:33]

And after he quotes it, he says, are there any mendicants who will die the same and live the same? May I ask a stupid question? What is a mendicant? Mendicant is, I think, someone who has almost no possessions and goes wrong and begs for support. All right. Well, one way to talk about this story is one level of looking at the story is as a presentation of two approaches, of two basic approaches to a practice.

[07:59]

One approach is setting something up. And the other approach is not setting something up. One approach is adapting the circumstances, taking into account the times in the context of the situation, offering what people seem to be asking for. putting some emphasis on what seems to be appearing. And this is sometimes called the granting way or the way of letting loose

[09:09]

or releasing, not holding to the absolute discipline of reality. The other side is sometimes called the grasping way or holding way, where you Don't set anything up. And he emphasized the real. In a sense, the story of Bodhidharma is like that, where he said,

[10:09]

The emperor said, you know, what merit is there in all this work that I've done? And Bodhidharma said, no merit. And he said, well, what's the highest meaning of holy truth? And he said, vast emptiness, no holy. Well, who is this facing me? Don't know. And they left. This is a... to the unbiased position. And then he went off and sat for nine years. And so the nation perished, so to speak, by that. If he had stayed and explained to the emperor a little bit in emperor's terms what he meant,

[11:12]

he would immediately have been probably the recipient of immense imperial patronage and his end school would have flourished in a sense at that time right away. The emperor would have been very happy about meeting Bodhidharma and finding out that actually he had met Pabalokiteshvara. But Pabalokiteshvara presented himself in this absolute form. And nothing could be picked up. And so the nation perished. The Zen nation, anyway, perished. And it seemed to have been a good move in the long run that he did this, seemed to have planted the seed very deeply in the dark.

[12:21]

And the school eventually then could take the other side. And some of his descendants then could teach this other way of setting something up. Like about three generations later, the fourth ancestor of the tradition then adopted this this granting way, this letting go of Bodhidharma's absolute position, and adapted to Chinese society somewhat. And then immediately the lineage sprung forth and grew into fluorescence. But it's had to spend all this time in the dark, building roots in the dark, with nobody noticing it or giving it any support. And the roots got strong. So then the fourth generation, when it came time to adapt, it went into big fluorescence. And then the fifth generation and sixth generation, of course, we know what happened by the sixth generation. But before the sixth generation, the fifth generation was already very, very big and had already been able to change and become relevant to Chinese society.

[13:34]

In a way that a lot of people can relate to. But without this other side that Bodhidharma had emphasized, it wouldn't have been really this living school, which can use, as the Blue Cliff Record says, which can use the life-giving sword and the death-taking sword. It can use both these swords. So it's not that one side is better than the other, but that we need to appreciate that at one moment this more absolute position is appropriate, and another moment the more flexible the one is appropriate.

[14:45]

We need to appreciate that and we need to actually endeavor to understand how you can go back and forth between the two and discern which is appropriate. One way seems like there's no adjustment at all. But sometimes that's appropriate. The other way seems that there's a lot of adjustment. You could even say that these two sars are like Manjushri and Avalokiteshvara. And the irony or paradox of Bodhidharma's story is that he played the part of Manjushri. So when the emperor asked who he was, he was told that he was Avalokiteshvara. because he didn't appear to be Avalokiteshbara. He didn't appear to be adapting to the multiplicity of needs of the situation. He seemed to be just holding to this one tone. But that's how Avalokiteshbara sometimes appears.

[15:48]

Avalokiteshbara appears sometimes as Manjushri. Isn't that so clear when setting something up is the action for V-Safe? And not setting something up there, not holding a strong, in terms of like, thinking about Emperor Wu, You could see us setting up all these things, doing all these things.

[16:52]

That's the matter to you. I think that's it. You can actually try to get something, try to interact something, and start to set up something. But you were saying that actually setting up something Right, Shihari wrote It's releasing something.

[17:55]

So what are you releasing when you get involved in setting something up? What are you letting go of in a case like that? What do you think? Anybody? Like when you set up a monastery or set up a Zen center, what are you letting go of? Mm-hmm. It doesn't go to the absolute. Freedom from travel. It doesn't go to freedom from travel. Go towards the end of the world. Go towards the end of the world. I was just thinking, in the case of the emperor rule, or in the case of that, he has the archetype of the emperor rule, but he has to do it. It looks like he's aware of the stuff that he's letting eat out, but it's more. is not the stuff that he's trying to get.

[18:58]

Great. However, I guess one thing I didn't make clear is these are two approaches to teaching, right? These are two approaches which the person who can use these two ways uses. If you use the grasping way, like the Emperor Wu, of setting something up to get something, then that's not called the grasping way. That's just grasping. So the grasping way means that in the cause of advancing freedom, you sometimes apparently get involved in setting stuff up, which could limit. Then once you set them up, then they can become hindrances. And the elder people, the elders in the community, the old peasants, knit their brow. They get tense. and they see people setting stuff up because they know that this is going to potentially encroach upon their freedom.

[19:59]

So they get kind of upset when they see these young whippersnappers setting stuff up. Like I think Suzuki Reji says on his commentary on this, that some old people would say, what are those people, those silly young people over at Zen Center doing setting up this place and having Zazen and stuff, making bread and What are they doing, you know? There's kind of some irritation to worry about that. But that's one of the modes that the person who can use either side will use as a way to advance people along the path of freedom. So they give up some unbiased position. You're more, you know, Before you have a Zen center, you're not very biased about the Zen center. Build a Zen center? Okay. Not tear the Zen center down? Okay. I remember at a certain point in the Zen center's history, I remarked, you know, I said, you know, we don't have to get this nervous about this thing.

[21:16]

We can just leave, you know. But I was convinced that this thing Zen Center was really important. So I kind of bought into the bias towards the existence of Zen Center, towards the establishment of Zen Center. And that can be skillful. That can be helpful. But it can also be an endurance. And we have to watch out for that. So in that sense, it's From the point of view of one who advances the way, it's a releasing of a position of freedom and letting people find some foothold. There's a risk there. In other words, you set something up, then you're risking. You're risking your target. You're risking your target. To do something, you're choking right away.

[22:19]

And the elders worry about this. They worry. And if you don't set something up, they relax, which is nice. It's kind of like, again, they're concerned for our welfare, these elders. But the funny thing is, if you don't try anything, they feel pretty comfortable. Are you sure this is going to work out? They worry. It's a good investment here. Of course, at a certain point, if you don't set anything up, that becomes setting something up, and then you worry about that, too. Shouldn't you be setting something up? If you make that into setting something up, just not making any investments, not using the resources of the family or whatever, or the village, then they get upset about that, too. Because that becomes a position. But to not take any position, to be completely unbiased, To hold to that, which is what Bodhidharma did, that's the other side.

[23:25]

But that's not the only way to practice. That's not the only way to teach. And so part of what's being alluded to here is how do we choose between these two sides? How does one choose between these two sides? And then the verse is, you know, pretty straightforward. Actually, it's not very straightforward. Because you sort of have to have a story about it to understand. As a graybeard rising from a hunt by the Wei River, how does that compare to those who starved in purity on Mount Shoyang? It just lies in a single act, distinguishing, changing conditions.

[24:30]

Fame and accomplishment are both hard to efface. So that refers to two stories, right? One story is about this guy that went fishing and found an imperial advisor. And this advisor then worked with this emperor to set up the empire of Zhou in China. The other story is about these two guys who were so shocked and embarrassed and ashamed of what happened in the setting up of that dynasty that they decided to go off in the mountains or as Galen said, over the hill and feed on wild plants and they starve to death. So those are the two sides here.

[25:40]

And another thing which maybe I could just say before we get into it a little bit is that in the introduction it says, you know, bare-handed, empty-fisted, is that what you have? A thousand changes, ten thousand transformations. Though this is making something out of nothing, what can you do? You employ the provisional or the apparent, to symbolize the real. So this is talking about employing, setting things up to symbolize the real. Yes.

[26:57]

Does that mean that setting up, symbolizing, right? Yeah, right, exactly, that's right. We set things up to symbolize not setting things up, right. Exactly. Or we make a Zen center and try to take care of it. I know. we inhabit a valley like this and try to take care of it, even try to take care of it, you know, not just day by day or even decade by decade, but even consider taking care of it for perhaps for centuries, thinking like how to take care of this valley for centuries. And we talk like that to symbolize a reality which is, you know, changing extremely rapidly. which is impermanent and ungraspable and unmaintainable by any intervention or something like that.

[28:05]

So we set this up in the spirit as a symbol of something which we can't set up and we can't take down, but is being set up and taken down faster than we can think. Like somebody talked me recently, but he had insight into the relevance of the Roadrunner cartoons. This high-spirited little thing that appears and disappears, you know, and this guy wants to get him, this fox or whatever, coyote, is it a coyote? Tries to catch him and tries all these means to grasp this thing. The other day we had a fire here and I, you know, I thought we did pretty well in responding to the fire, even while we actually thought that maybe the fire was the guesthouse before we knew what it was actually burning. It wasn't the guesthouse, but for a while there, I heard it was the guesthouse.

[29:12]

So I was looking at that symbol that we set up over there, that beautiful building. to remind us of impermanence. We build these buildings to remind the world of impermanence. And we don't build them kind of like ramshackle. That isn't how you remind people of impermanence. You build them really nicely. At least that's the way we did it. We built it nicely to remind, to symbolize impermanence. Now, you could build it another way. You could build it ramshackle, but that doesn't really do it. Yes. It reminds me that this case, I recall, the ruling poem that the world would be created out of our love of emptiness. Right. Exactly, yeah. The Buddhist center or the Zen center that we create out of our love and appreciation of emptiness.

[30:20]

As a celebration of emptiness. And... But sometimes you don't set something up to celebrate emptiness. Sometimes the way you celebrate it is by giving nothing. And it's not that that's it or the other way is it, but what's it can use these two ways. is a function that can manifest in the appropriate use of these two approaches of building buildings to symbolize the fact that buildings really never were built. To set something up to demonstrate that nothing actually arises. Or to not set something up to hold to the fact that, you know,

[31:25]

Everything is vanity. And our real way, our true practice, is both of these methods at the right time. Isn't that difficult, I mean, to set something up in the spirit of letting go of it at the same time? I mean, usually by setting something up, we... And when we built, like, a very nice house, we get attached to it by the way we're doing it. Right. Exactly. Even if you set it up in the first place as a dedication to emptiness. Right. Even in that way. So, like, you know, Paul Disco, who was the... chief carpenter of building that thing I mean I think that's what he thought he was doing so if it burned down I think I think it would be it would be his his way would be to enjoy that enjoy the fire now whether he could live up to his way I don't know

[32:52]

It was a pile of wood quite nearby, big pieces of wood that the fire would have spread. But fortunately, the fire truck got there really fast and got water on it. Could you say something about that? Fundamental basis. I understand that question. Where is that? Is there a fundamental basis or not? Well, one way to understand this question is that in watching this activity of making something out of nothing, is there some fundamental basis there in this activity of making something out of nothing?

[34:24]

Out of making things appear to symbolize the ungraspable Is there some basis there? Oh, that's part of it, yeah. Does it exist? Or is there any basis to this whole setup, to this whole appearance and disappearance? Is there any basis to it all? Is there any basis to delusion? Is there any basis to reality? Yes? Yeah, I guess you see it very connected to the sentence before, where it said you avoid a provisional to civilize the real. And then you think, oh, great.

[35:27]

So there's something called the real. And they're saying, well, wait a second. But tell me, is there real? Do you point to it and cannot speak? Right. Follow the question. Yeah. And also, this person who can use the holding to the real sometimes, and other times using the apparent to symbolize the real, this person who can use these appropriately, is that really the fundamental person? Or is there somebody even more basic than that? So again, I don't like to use this system, but there's a system of these five ranks or five positions that you can take.

[36:32]

One position you can take is, well, let's use things to symbolize the real. The other is, let's use the real to symbolize things. And then the other position is, you know, being able to use both, knowing which both. And the other is to actually manifest that, to actually make that come alive in the world. Not just being able to use both, but actually make it happen in the world. But the final position is the identity. the identity of people who can and cannot perform this, the identity of the two sides, and the identity of existence and non-existence. Is there such a position or such a state as the identity, non-duality of existence and non-existence? What's that?

[37:33]

Is that a basis? Keep that in mind, too, as we discuss this story. The systematic quality of them, which I just sketched in the air. I don't like the system, because that becomes another thing set up. And the elders of the Soto school get worried when you set up a system. You know? Dogen did not teach the five ranks. So you can't avoid them, but you can avoid teaching them. You can avoid, and I just taught him, but fortunately most of you didn't hear what I said. So I'm not going to get too much trouble for this. We heard, but it didn't take root.

[38:34]

Well, if you should study this stuff and learn it, then we've got problems. They say in the history of Soto School that when people studied these five ranks and became very proficient at them, they would practice deteriorating. The actual life of the tradition gets inhibited when people get too good at the system, even though the system is a nice system. And Abhidharma is that way too. One time I was riding to the airport, with Kadavira Roshi after we had this, we had a seminar with Taratoku here, and I told him that I really enjoyed his Taratoku's talks because everything he said, I could hear the Abhidharma that he was getting it from. I really enjoyed it. I could tell what chapter he was talking about, even though he wouldn't say anything about the Abhidharma, I could just hear all this, I could hear his education in that system coming through his talks.

[39:37]

And he could present the Arbidharma in such a good way, such a nice way and accessible to people, but it was coming out of this system. And I mentioned that to Kadagiri, he said, yeah, but there's a problem of that system. Many problems of the system, but anyway, it is, and partly that it's so useful. Also, like Suzuki Rishi said one time, he cautioned us about astrology, he said, because it's so true. It's so true that it's hard to not, you know, start interpreting everything through astrology and watching all these astrological events happening, right? And we had some people that were hot out of the Aquarian, whatever, as I'm saying at that time, that were really good at astrology and they were like, that's the way they saw things and he had to deal with that. And he didn't appreciate it as being so helpful to them. It seemed to be a a diversion from facing the ungraspability and awesomeness of everything.

[40:43]

So that's the problem of the system of the five ranks. But in the awesomeness of this class and not knowing what's going on, I chickened out and used the five ranks. Please forgive me and wash your ears out. I'll try not to do it anymore. Occasionally, she shows us something about it and says, oh. This is what you talk about. I mean, do you think that life's hurting that the food's alive? Yeah, that's right. But it was actually among the single atoms I could put up. That was like one of the worst ones.

[41:46]

That was like a jewel atom. It was not putting it up. It was like they don't put it up. Yeah, but you didn't know it before I told you. Well, I didn't. Did you notice I wasn't putting it up? Or I didn't? I don't know. Which I don't know is that. Yeah, but you got the footing up one or the not one? It's both. The five ranks are referred to in the end here. Well, they're there. No, they're there. You can't avoid them, but it's just a question of whether you lay them out and use them to think of things, or whether you just discover them. Why not use them appropriately? Instead of being scared of them, you know, like worrying that somebody's going to get addicted.

[42:51]

You know, like pushing them away. Yeah, right. That sounds good. Except elders, the elders though, the elders, the old stiff elders, they go, oh, bringing up that system again, oh no. So as an elder, thinking in terms of the tradition and worrying about what's going to happen, I worry about these five ranks. But the other side, hey, let's relax, listen up. There's worse things than talking about the five ranks. I mean, really. Like their five. You also notice in Soto Zen we don't talk about Satori. We don't talk about Kensho. Not to mention we don't tell people to get it next week. Our guarantee that they would be able to get it if they really tried hard.

[43:55]

We don't talk about that stuff, right? But we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. I'm not going to, but you guys can talk about it. Yes. You're asking too many questions. You're asking too many questions. There you go. Are they the same as the ancestors? What? Are they the same as the ancestors? Yeah, these are ancestral peasants. These are like black peasants. Well, all the peasants are on the same level, okay? He just said these are the elders of the peasants. The oldest peasants. These are the older peasants. These are the tradition-protecting peasants. These are the heads of the Peasants' Defense Fund. What is it, the Wilwright Senate Peasants? The Wilwright Senate Peasants? Yeah, right.

[44:57]

Well, what's the relationship between these peasants and ministers and generals? I mean, they don't usually, those kind of people don't usually hang out together. Exactly. That's right. So if we set up this system, some people are going to become, you know, like crafty ministers. They're going to learn the system, right? in the present of Iran, we don't need these experts in our village. Who needs them? If you hadn't have set up this Abhidharma in the first place, we wouldn't have these crafty Abhidharma experts around here. Things would be a lot better. Right? But the funny thing, and Swayidu is asking, are there any mendicants who will die the same and live the same? He's asking also, as it says here, hey, Are there any crafty ministers or valiant, venerable generals?

[46:03]

What kind of generals? Valiant generals. Do we have some of the people who will go out there, have the courage to learn this stuff, get mastery at this stuff, at these techniques, at these temple building stuff, have the courage to hammer out a Wheelwright Center in the midst of chaos, or a Lindisfarne building? I watched Paul Disco work one time. I mean, he's very skillful, but it looks like he's trying to bash something into reality. It's like he's fighting against all the forces of nature. It's him and this nail against all the forces of nature. I've seen him pound a nail. Big one. Like that. Well, actually, he's pounding it on my house. But you could see him really struggling against various forces of nature, you know, cement and rusty nail and hammer and gravity and, you know, it's... Struggle there.

[47:12]

Maybe he was affirming himself. He was definitely affirming himself, yes. And surprising me in the process. Yes? Yes? Did you just refer to the mendicants as the Crack and Gisters and Rebellion Channel? I suggested that Swaydu, when asking if there are any mendicants who can do this thing of live together and die together, or live the same and die the same, he later said, in the verse celebrating this case, he said, are there any, what does he say? Oh yeah. Are there any crafty ministers for valiant generals around? He's asking the same question. Ludwig the same and die the same refers to people who are able to both set up when that's appropriate and not set up when that's appropriate.

[48:20]

Is that what Ludwig the same refers to? I think actually what he's doing here in that question is he's taking one side and stir it. He's quoting this guy who talks about these two sides, right? Setting up and not setting up. But then he says, is there anybody here who can help me set up something? Because the people he's talking to were mendicants. That was the group. group of mendicants? Are there any people in here who can be, who can, you know, set up a stake, who can set up this monastery? Anybody here who can take care of this monastic institution? Anybody here who can, you know, lead this community? Or is there anybody here who can advise the leadership, who has the wisdom to advise the leadership on how to take care of this institution, of this monastery, which all you people are living in?

[49:29]

By living it's you, it's monks. Yeah, he means monks. He means the pastoral monks that lived in the monastery where he was teaching and he had a big monastery and he was saying, if anybody here wants to take care of it, can take care of it. Anybody have the skill to take care of it. And he asked him that in the context of the quote he just made. He's saying, if you set this place up, you've got problems, right? The nation flourishes, but the elders of our tradition kind of are wondering, what are you doing here? Under those circumstances, would there be anybody who would take care of this place? Also knowing that if you don't do anything, if you take over responsibility for this community, if you want to be a leader, remember that if you don't do anything, the elders will relax. The tradition will be happy because the tradition is safer if you don't do anything. However, then there's nothing available to people, too. One way to make this tradition safe is to have it not available to people.

[50:36]

However, then, who's going to live it? If you make it available, then who's going to live it, right? Then who are the faithful? Well, just about anybody who wants to give it a try, which is quite embarrassing sometimes, that we are the faithful of this tradition. I mean, we're the... we and a few other people are the actual life of this tradition, because it was made available. Now, if it hadn't been available, a lot of us would not be practicing right now, and the tradition would not be embarrassed by us. Exactly. And Suzuki Roshi said in his commentary, If the elders saw us, they would say, what are these silly kids doing here, setting this thing up? Who do they think they are? They're really weird. And look at the way they're doing it over their neck. They've said that. Huh? They've said that. What? They've said that. They've said that, and they still do say that.

[51:40]

They've said that, and they still do say that. How did the elders get to the elders? I heard of those prayers. I guess by the same mistake before, so they could have access. So now that they've got access, they don't have anybody else to do it. Because they realize how dangerous it is. It's a cycle. It's a vicious cycle. Could you explain that nation or that empire of Chile, did you say? Yes, it's a Chinese dynasty that I think happened before the Han. No. you know, like before 220 AD, I think. I think it's that one. Does anybody know which? Is this the 220? The one before 220? Is it that, Joe? Set up by Taizong. And that somehow is referenced by this hunt by the way ribbon? Yeah. This guy went hunting and he threw the I Ching before, I suppose, and I Ching said, you're not going to catch a bear or a tiger this time.

[52:52]

You're going to catch an assistant to the emperor, or an assistant to the future emperor. And so he met this guy fishing by the river, and he talked to him, and he realized that he'd found the kind of advisor that his lord or his leader was looking for for years. And so this guy went, and they got together, and this guy was successful in setting up this empire. Well, it says here that these other guys, when they saw this happen, they were so ashamed of the behavior of the people who set up this dynasty that they decided to, you know, not set anything up, not be involved in this enterprise.

[53:56]

They went off into the mountains and start to death. As an example of purity, of holding to the pure path. Do you think of the monks? Well, the monks, they were like probably even Daoist sages or something. Yes? I understand. This is pre-Buddhism in China. I understand the logical construction of holding up the staff, setting up the teaching, and saying that what would follow from that would be, is there anybody who would agree to do it? But I have trouble construing the logic of the statement. Are there any mendicants who will die the same, live the same? On the face of it, I don't know how to construe it.

[54:57]

I think part of it is the grammar, the saying as what? Well, also, instead of saying same, this may not help you any, but instead of saying same, the book that Rudd translates it as together, to live together and die together. I like together better. Subordinate to the nation, giving up their mendicancy, subordinating themselves to the nation. It seems like the peasants, peasants don't like nations because the nations tax the peasants. They take the grain and everything's fine and then this nation comes along and it flourishes but the peasants lose a certain amount of freedom and gain a certain level of security but they lose freedom. So they're They give up something in order to gain security when the nation is there.

[56:00]

But they like it. They don't realize that if the nation wasn't there, the barbarians would come and take everything like that. So this is kind of a compromise that they're making. They really do want a little security. They do want a nation, but they don't want to give up any of their prerogative. So they kind of cluck about it, but they go on to them. And another dynamic here in that statement, Stuart, is that in a commentary, after Swaydu, in a line-by-line commentary, when Swaydu holds up his staff, what is his name? Duran Wu says, one must stand like a mile-high wall to accomplish this. Bodhidharma has come. So part of what's going on here, too, perhaps you can see, is that when Swaydu holds the staff up, He's not setting anything up. So he's holding the staff up, but not setting anything up.

[57:04]

He's using the real to represent things. And then the next line, he switches to the other side and says, now will anybody help me set something up? But he really means it. So even in that one line, he's He's moving back and forth between the two sides. Of one side being holding... Again, holding to the real means that he uses things to represent the real. And holding to... But letting go of the real means you use the real to symbolize... You use things to represent things. Excuse me. You use, in the first case, holding to the correct position. You use... the real to symbolize things. The other way is to use things to symbolize the real. And you did one in one case and the other in the other case.

[58:08]

Is there a similarity between what we're talking about here? I'm just trying to get some sort of a flash on this, but... What came into my mind was that story of the, and I don't even know if I have this story right, but I've heard it talked about here before, of the two monks that are arguing, they're watching a flag wave in the wind and they're arguing about is it the wind or is the flag moving and then someone else comes along and says it's night or throws them off balance somehow. And if that's trying to illustrate the same thing, I mean, it's just... Yeah. And it's interesting, too, that story makes me think of this one, too, in the sense that... So the basic story is, is it the wind that's moving or the flag?

[59:12]

That's the debate, right? And... Okay. And then... The comment is, the tiebreaker is, it's not either, it's the mind that's moving. Okay? But then Dogen comes later and comments, where it is, is this the moving moving? Is that what he said? It's the moving moving. Which is, I think, corresponds to these two positions and then being able to use either one is the tiebreaker. okay but then even the tiebreaker it's the it's the tie-breakingness of the tiebreaker that's really the fundamental thing but is that anything you know so it's not really the mind that's moving even makes me think of because there's not really such a thing as the mind moving you get into the same thing again marriage you get with the flag and the wind

[60:20]

If you think of the opposite, like those monks who go off to starve, it seems like they only can't do that with anything having been set up before. Like by themselves, they wouldn't make sense. They just make sense in the context. Exactly. So it's this togetherness. And maybe we can't always choose the middle way with having like having conscious that we choose one way, there will be something that brings it in balance somewhere in the universe. Like, that there is not one end without the other. And in the long run, they served a purpose. They demonstrated purity. But they used something apparent to demonstrate the purity. They did this act, which you could see. to point to the purity, which they couldn't see. They didn't see the purity being held up, so they held up purity in the world.

[61:29]

What about this 10,000 miles pure wind only I myself know? Is that in here too? Okay, so, see if you can, in the blue clip record, Swaydu says, in his verse on celebrating this thing, he says, the old peasants may not unfurl their brows. In other words, the old peasants are worried. They're tense about what's happening here. In other words, something's being set up. So he quotes, at the beginning, he says these two ways, setting something up and not setting something up. But then in his verse, He just talks about setting something up. When he sets something up, the elders are worried. So he says, okay, the elders are worried. And Adam has been set up. But he says, for now, I hope that the nation establishes a sturdy foundation.

[62:38]

Let's just let that be now. And then he says, are there any cracking ministers to take care of this place now? And then he says, 10,000 pure minds, only I know. Or another translation would be, 10,000 miles, pure wind, Swaydu nods to himself. In other words, what's he saying? Yeah, but what's he saying about himself? Only I know.

[63:47]

Of course not, because every person is so different and so meaningful. And so, you know, I mean, I know that's not at all the meaning that they're now, you know, building up. Well, you know, when you first started talking, it wasn't, but it became that way. So I think that could be the thing. He was saying what? He nodded to himself. I mean, there's... It's like you can't do anything with that to anything else. You can die, but you're not yourself. And if you go off and become pure and you can die on the weeds, you do it. It's like, isn't that what it's supposed to be? I feel like you're close to it here. I think there's something about coming back to Sway Du in the end here, in pointing to himself.

[64:54]

This is where Sway Du points to himself, where he says, 10,000 miles of pure wind, only I know. He's pointing to himself. Yeah. before the absence of 10,000 miles of pure wind and the way of setting the absence. How do we know it? It's just right here. Are there any crafty ministers or valley generals. 10,000 miles pure wind only I know.

[65:56]

Yes? So is he going to be attractive? Does he be the one who lives or not? Is he putting outside of himself first? See if he can see He's looking outside and asking if there anyone else is here. And maybe he's saying, am I here? And also, this verse is said to be his versification of his question. It's not his versification of the story. It's his versification of the question.

[67:01]

It's not his versification of setting up an atom, the nation flourishes, not setting up an atom, the nation perishes. It's not a versification of that. It's a versification of just setting up an atom. his versification of holding up a staff and saying, are there any people here who will live together and die together? And then he says, the elders will be worried about the situation here now. But for the time being, I hope that the nation has a sturdy foundation. Are there any crafty ministers or valiant generals here now and 10,000 miles of pure wind, only I know. So he's standing there in front of his group, quoting the story, asking this question, and then giving this verse, ending the verse by saying, only I know.

[68:03]

pointing to himself as a teacher, as an example. Is he also saying, am I the only one? His original statement, he calls his circle, his original statement, he calls it to staff and he says, am I the only one? Or are there any other people who will live together and die together here? And Andy, again, points to himself. Yes? I think it's also important to remember, as I understand it, he was commenting on Wife Shea's statement. Yes. A longer version of that statement that Wife Shea says, um... And, if you can't probably understand here, you have no separate part, it's all this old monk clean and imbued and there's that non-separateness in that original statement.

[69:17]

So that, in some sense, he's re-enacting the unsaid part of the original story. Right. This business about this old monk me. It's all this old monk me. So he's kind of re-enacting And maybe in that way, you see, that's the nice thing about tradition, maybe in that way, the way he's not really doing anything new and not really setting anything up. And he can be creative and do something different, and yet he's not doing anything different, not setting anything up. So maybe in the end, the elderly won't be so upset because he's just copying it. That's the nice thing about imitation. Is you can apparently do something, but really you're not doing anything.

[70:21]

And they weren't either. They were just imitating too. Wind cave. He had 10,000 miles of pure wind come back to this cave. Is that what his name? His name is Wind Cave. Swaydu? I don't know what Swaydu means. Got me, hasn't it? But not for me. I'll look it up. I'm thinking that the crafting ministers and valiant generals are like, when I was working, it was like the voices in our head or the thieves. They sometimes refer to any other stories, like our six fences. Could it have that twist on it?

[71:25]

Are all tricksters that keep us? Keep us. I was... As I was studying this, I was trying to see it almost as a... Well, the word that comes from that is closed circle. I mean, that the whole thing was sort of an internal situation, not actually back and forth between two outside things, which is where I was thinking trying to think of how these ministers and generals might try and pull us more into delusion. Kind of what Mara did, throwing up various pictures of whatever. Mm-hmm. But a couple of things that occurred to me is, number one, Wind Cave is a possible name for the tea house.

[72:33]

And another thing is that in the story about the balloon, In the story, in this book, The Blue Cliff Record, the first story about Bodhidharma, they ask, you know, who can measure the pure wind circling the earth? There's another kind of circle coming, the wind circling around the earth. Who can measure this? And these ministers who seem to be, these ministers and generals, You know, they may be up to some funny stuff, some shenanigans, and yet, is there some way to inhabit them in such a way that we don't set anything up? Rather than like resisting them, which is another kind of craftiness or strategy.

[73:38]

Just use the facilities offered to you by what's already been set up. Inhabit the facilities by using the facilities. You don't have to set anything up. And yet, if you don't use the facilities, you kind of set something up. So just inhabit the processes of the mind which imagine things and create things and have already set things up. And because they've already set things up, other things have been set up. There's this cycle of creation that's been already set up. so that you can jump on that wheel and inhabit it fully and in that way use it to symbolize or to enact or to manifest that nothing is being set up and in fact by just joining what's already been going on you're not setting it so you can see these various aspects of the mind that she refers to as maybe that's psychological or a Buddhist theoretical, psychological, systematic way of talking about these generals and these crafty ministers.

[74:42]

And they can both be seen as distractions or diversions or demons. But they're demons only when they're out there. If you join them and become one with them, then you're not setting anything up. Yes? I have this strong feeling that I want to understand how this story evolves from the prior story. Yes. I don't understand. But yes, I can taste it. We're talking in... as being 10,000 men. This one seems to evolve more towards, okay, if you have that, how do you bring this to the world and at the same time remain free and not get stuck in a system?

[75:51]

What's floating through my mind? Look, in the previous story, you can probably see them as both, neither one of them is setting anything up, even though one of them talks about how things have been set up keeps him busy. He's busy coping with what's been set up. Okay. But he's not really set up. In that previous story, I think he sees people, maybe both of them, are not setting something up. And they're demonstrating that very nicely. I think there is a taste of that that carries over into this case. Right. Yes? What you said earlier, that's what What Ms. Swaydu is saying is that whether the atom is set up or not, can any men live the same? That's what it said to me. The same is whether it was set up or not set up. Like the middle way. Practice the same way when you set up or not set up.

[76:54]

That can be lived. That's the advantage of translating as same. Right. The sameness of the practice, whether setting up or taking down. Right. In that sense, that echoes a lot of the past cases we've done. Yeah. Right. And reading it as together would more emphasize the fact of being together with... We can be together with those who are setting up. Or we can be together with those who aren't setting up. We can be setting up and allow people to be in our world who are not setting anything up. We can tolerate those who hold to the pure. Or if we're holding to the pure, we can also get along with people who are setting things up. And we can also live together and die together with the elders who are knitting their brows over what we're doing.

[78:02]

That's also part of the same practice, no matter what's happening. So we have a nice situation because, in fact, we can practice not setting anything up, and we can practice setting things up. And whether we practice setting things up or not, somebody around here is setting things up. And also, somebody has set something up, and people aren't inhabiting the setup. This is actually reality of what we're dealing with here. And we have a lot of struggle over finding our place in this setup. And we're setting up new stuff. Every day we set up new stuff. Some of us do. And others have asked to live with that. In fact, this is our life. Can we do this together? And can we do this together, always doing the same practice, whether we're setting something up, resisting it being set up, living in it, or watching it deteriorate? Because we all decided to take a week off and just not set anything up. To set up not setting things up and watch the place fall apart. Maybe make some provision beforehand to put a sign up on the road saying it's closed.

[79:11]

So the falling apart aspect will be minimized. But again, just to repeat again, Arlene, time for you to ask a question. No, I didn't raise my hand this time. I know, but go ahead. You didn't ask a question. It's OK. My question is, in this translation, if I could work it downward, are they trying to express to us to work towards staying the same with our experience of our stupidity and our smart, but stay the same in our practice? Is he asking us, can you stay the same after your experience of smart and stupid, which I guess is what makes it like?

[80:18]

Well, I think that, again, these two ways, is it together is the same, if it's the same, can you find the sameness in your practice through your stupidity and smartness? Can you find that there's something the same there? There's something that runs through both of those. And also, when you're being smart, can you... can you live and die together with the dumb? When you're being dumb, can you live and die together with the smart? Can we do this together? Whichever position we seem to be manifesting, whichever approach we seem to be using, can we somehow not be fooled by this? And remember that there's some kind of radiant being that uses the thought almost simultaneously, but certainly back and forth, according to circumstances, in some kind of musical way. Not necessarily boom, [...] boom. We don't know. It's probably something musical like that, the way it's being used.

[81:21]

And then, is there any basis to this being? And these dimensions or these issues are ways for us to tune in to such a being without remembering what the five ranks are. Yes. Well, live the same and die the same, or live together and die together seems like living in the moment and dying in the moment. Yes, living in the moment and dying in the moment together. Together with the people who we feel separate from. Together with the approach that we're not seem to be using. caring about this place and this community, setting it up, taking care of it, and remembering that it's gone already. It's wrecked, and how can there be an end to a drifting wreckage?

[82:27]

That's a great point. Okay. Okay. There are some people who haven't asked a question. How about those people? Andy? I interpret this case a little bit differently. I think the same way, but from a different angle. One way I try to look at it is in light of a Diamond Sutra. I tend to look at all these things that way, so I'm sure it's stuck in five ranks in that respect. If you set up a single atom, the nation flourishes. If you don't set up a single atom, the nation perishes. Therefore, we set up a single atom, the nation flourishes. And the meaning of that is that we don't set up a single atom, the nation perishes.

[83:35]

It's a complete rotation. rapid historically. Well, again, one of the central themes of this book, which occurs over and over again, is the constant pivoting, constant turning. There should always be this turning in our practice. Can you sense the pivot in this story? There's a pivot in this story. There's a turning in this story. Taking this position, taking that position, being turned from this position to that position. You know, being separate, joining. We lay talking about other people and remembering it yourself, all this. But it's 9 o'clock, so you should stop. And thank you for studying this book for six weeks. And in January, we'll probably continue with this case. Why are we juggling them at 20? If somebody can think of a way to have a party.

[84:37]

Let me know. What's a koan party? Set something up. But if we set something up, the elders will frown. But people who have borrowed books, please return your borrowed book. You should read? Please return your borrowed book or make an arrangement with Maya about that. Thank you very much.

[85:17]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_80.13