I just wanted to give a little psychology class at the beginning. I think Jay asked me some question like, what is, did you say something like, what is an unsupported thought? Was that it? What is an unsupported thought? Was it in relationship to this case at all? What kind of relationship to this case did you ask? ...relations to the mind and environments and if the thought was supported. Yeah. Yeah. So you... Section 10C of the Diamond Sutra is that one where the Buddha said that a bodhisattva should produce an unsupported thought, a thought which has no abode. It doesn't depend on... sights, sounds, smells, tastes, or tangibles, or mind objects, a thought that is nowhere supported.

[01:10]

So in terms of this case, the usual thought is defined as, or mind, is defined as that which depends on something else, that which has objects, or that which can think of something. That's the definition of mind given in case 32. That which has the ability to think of something. So the thought which is defined in that part of case 32 is a thought that depends on something. It depends on what it can think of. It depends on the object or the environment. So what is an unsupported thought? What we're being shown here is a thought which has a support, which depends on objects. When it arises, it always arises with objects.

[02:17]

When objects arise, it arises. They come up together, they depend on each other. What's an unsupported thought? Without an object. It's a thought that doesn't have an object. So what kind of a thought doesn't have an object? An object without a thought. Unsupported. Okay, it's an object without a thought, but what kind of an object doesn't have a thought? Nothing you've ever thought of before. Yeah, that's right. Octane, yes. Well, actually, these are spontaneous, too. These dualistic thoughts are spontaneous, too. Well, a thought without an object would be a thought that doesn't have... A thought which has no support or doesn't depend on anything is a thought without an object. What kind of a thought doesn't have an object? Something that you don't see outside yourself, that we've been talking about for a second.

[03:21]

Yes. Mm-hmm. You're self-sufficient. Mm-hmm. fully self-sufficient would be complete in and of itself. The thought would be complete in and of itself. What kind of a thought is that? It's a thought that's not without objects but doesn't depend on them. Yes, not without objects and doesn't depend on them. Right. What kind of a thought is that? Awakened. Yeah. What kind of a thought is that? No thought. No thought. Yes, it's no thought. So how do you produce a thought which is no thought? How do you produce a thought which isn't without objects and doesn't depend on objects? What? Non-thinking. Yeah, right. So how do you produce non-thinking? What? Being. Being?

[04:23]

Being. What kind of being? Being in the present. What kind of being in the present? Can you say more about how that is? Being present in the moment. Being present in the moment, yes. Like thinking in the present, in the moment. Receiving and using the plane. Receiving and using your karma, yeah. So isn't that what you all do? Can you do something different from that? Or are you bodhisattvas producing an unsupported thought, a thought which doesn't depend on anything? Hm? I wasn't doing it and realizing it, two different things. Well, is there a difference?

[05:26]

And what's the difference? Or if there isn't. One is self-centered. What? One is self-centered. And what's the difference between the one that's self-centered and the one that isn't? It's a concept of the self. Pardon? Having a concept of the self. In one case is having a concept of the self, and how about the other case? There's no concept of self. What is there? No concept. There can be a concept of self. The concept of self doesn't kill a Buddha. A belief in a self. A belief in a self doesn't kill a Buddha. I thought there was no separate self. Hmm? I thought there was no idea of separate self. Well, there can be that.

[06:28]

So, there... to have to get rid of this sense of self or the concept of self or the belief in self, to have to get rid of that in order for there to be unsupported thought would be a supported thought. So, the issue is not that you have to erase the self, the concept of self, belief in self, a sense of separate self. The idea of getting... There's no such thing as a self that's not a separate self. The self is a separate self. However, the separate self is also not a separate self. But first of all, there has to be a separate self for any meaningful discussion. You don't start with the self that's not a separate self. You start with the self that's a separate self. But a separate self, etc., is born of not what it's separate from, of what it's not separate from, which is not itself.

[07:34]

So, freedom from a sense of self, freedom from the idea of self, freedom from the idea of a separate self, freedom from belief in the self, that's an unsupported thought. So what's freedom from sense of self? Is it that there's no self? If there's no self, you're not free of a self. Because then, if you need the sense of self to be gone, then... you're not free because when it comes back, you're in trouble again. You need to be able to be free with the sense of self sitting there, you know, talking right to you or, you know, crawling around the back of your neck or standing on your head or shaking your hand. You need to be able to meet this sense of self so thoroughly that you're free of what you're meeting. Not grasping the thought of self.

[08:44]

Not grasping the thought of self, right. Not grasping the thought of self is an unsupported thought. Not grasping sights, sounds, tangibles, smells, mind objects, sense of self, not grasping anything, that's an unsupported thought. But what kind of a thought is that? And how do you get to that thought? How do you realize, how do you practice How do you make an effort? How do you conduct yourself? By thoroughly doing what you're doing. By thoroughly doing what you're doing, which is that you're grasping a self. Or that you're trying to get rid of a self, which is a negative form of grasping a self. Or that you're trying to make your head go around and stop thinking of a separate self. That's another trick you can try, which is fine, as long as you do that thoroughly. If you do it thoroughly, Your thought reverses, and when your thought reverses, then you produce the unsupported thought.

[09:46]

And, of course, you don't produce it. It is produced by you being thoroughly the thing you are. Yes? You see, is realization of the emptiness of thought still a supported thought? I mean, you're... No. Realization of the emptiness of thought is not a supported thought. Producing, supposing, supposing a, what's the thing, what kind of thought is, what kind of support do you suppose? That is realization of emptiness. But you have to do it by Like I was talking about salmons last week. Salmons are narrow little things. They're thin little fishes. They're narrow. And their narrowness is due to a great deal of complexity.

[10:54]

So somebody's talking about widening the narrowness. It isn't that you widen it, it's that you... Because you never can widen it wide enough. It's by thoroughly exerting salmon-ness that you realize the totality and the vastness of salmon-ness, and it's by totally exerting your limited thinking that you realize your thinking is not your thinking. So it is a nice idea to try to expand your thinking about yourself or salmon, which is fine, but really, if you really study salmon, you find out... that they're not salmon. When you find out they're not salmon, then you get the whole schmear of what makes them, rather than like just trying to expand your idea of salmon bigger and bigger. So the way to produce this unsupported thought is to get into the mechanics of a supported thought. At the brink of supportive thinking, you realize supported thinking is not supported.

[11:58]

but not by trying to think of what not supported is, because that's another kind of supported. And I think, coincidentally or fortunately, that's kind of what this next case is about. This next case is not as accessible in a way. They don't give you any instructions. This is not a dialogue between a teacher and a student. This is a dialogue between two... whatever you want to call them, two adepts, right? They're both adept. They're both like at the stage of persons. They haven't just like entered into realization of emptiness. They've realized emptiness and brought it forth for quite a while, and now they're meeting each other. And so this is the thing about, this is one of these things about what it's like when adepts meet each other, which is hard to see what's going on, especially when certain people of ancient times have already commented on it and told us.

[13:15]

Do you mean to talk to us to see what's going on, or between them? It's hard for us to see what's going on. They are what's going on. That's it. They're not seeing anything. They're just what's going on. They are history. You're history. Yes? I think that you explained a couple of paragraphs ago a question I had on this case, and I'd like to check that with you. The dialogue between Guishan and Yangshan, in which Yangshan says, if you have me see for myself at this point, there is no state of completion and nothing to cut off either.

[14:15]

And Guishan says, according to your point of view, there are still phenomena and you still haven't gotten away with the mind and object. And Yangshan says, since there's no complete state, whereas there's no mind in objects. And Guishan says, just now, didn't he make such an interpretation that yes, if so, then that's completely mind in object. Was it that he made an interpretation that was no mind in objects because there was no completion of state of completion, and that that was conditioned? And creating that condition then is understanding conditional energy. This is an example of, what do you call it, jumping rope. Okay? This glass is like jumping rope. Okay?

[15:17]

And... It's not clear who who's at the two ends of it's like a jump jump rope, but it's not like one person jumping rope It's like two people holding the ends of the rope jumping and then the class can like to drop swing boom [...] and then One two three. Can you jump in and jump on the grope? Okay, so I think for the sake of the class I We're going to have to, if we're going to do this question for the sake of the class, we're going to have to go to see if they can get with the rhythm of this thing and see if they can jump in, okay? All right? It's okay with me. You want to do this jump rope thing? Yes. Sure. It's, you know, this is a kind of, got to get this rhythm here, okay? So. So. Line number one. If you have me see for myself, at this point there is no state of completion and nothing to cut off either.

[16:26]

Okay. Yangshan says, Yangshan, the teacher in this case 32 says, when he was younger, studying with his teacher, he said to his teacher, if you have me see for myself, there is no state of completion and no cutting off either. When I get here, I see nothing and there is no nothing either. How's that? Okay. If you have me see for myself, when I get here, there's no, when I get here, there's not a completion. In other words, I'm not stuck in the state of person. I haven't accomplished that. And there's also no cutting off either. Is that enough of a beat of the rope for now? Next line, this teacher says.

[17:28]

According to your point of view, there are still phenomena, and you haven't yet got away from mind and objects. OK, can you see how what he said is still dealing with objects? Can you feel that? At least that's what his teacher says. He feels like he's still talking about... Even though he said there's no state of completion and there's no cutting off either, which is good, good statement, still the way he said it, his teacher felt like he was still dealing with mind and object. Now, if he disagrees, let's see what he says. Since there is no complete state, where are there still mind and object? In other words... I said that there was no complete state and no cutting off either, so why do you tell me that how could there be no mind and objects in what I just said?" And the teacher said? Just now, didn't you make such an interpretation?

[18:30]

Can you see that? Can you see how he's still thinking? He's positing something out there, right? no state of completion and no cutting off either. The teacher says, you're still playing the same game. He says, but in that situation, how could I be playing the game? He's still positing the same thing. Can you jump through that? Play with that? Okay, then what? Is that it? Janschatt said, yes. And Guishan said, if so, then this is completely mind and objects. How can you say it are or not? I think that's the same beat. However, is that the end? That's the end, right? No, it goes on. Okay, go on. That's the same beat then. However, I think it's important, he said, then it's completely mind and objects. Okay? Yes?

[19:30]

Then what? No, actually, you're right. That is the last state of that dialogue. I'm confused. It was another one, another dialogue that follows in the next paragraph that I think is the next beat after that. Okay. But so far in this one, how are you guys doing? Hard to follow? Want to do it again? Too intellectual. Too intellectual? Yeah. Yeah, that's why, can you make it, can you make it, well, I guess, first of all, can you say or can you bring forth from your mouth anything like what Yongshan said? If you can't do that, then it's going to be hard to get into this. Because that's what I mean by the rope swinging around. Can you jump into that? If not, then it's going to be hard to get non-intellectual later.

[20:32]

It's sort of like he's saying, I'm not attached to anything. I'm really not attached to anything. And in saying that, his teacher just senses, boy, he seems pretty excited about not being attached to anything, and therefore I can see that he's still stuck. Yeah, kind of, yeah. And he's specifically saying how he's showing, in terms of what he sees and what he understands, in terms that he's demonstrating his lack of attachment. by saying there is no state of completion and no cutting off. That's how he's putting it. That's his way of saying this. And his teacher says, you're still in the realm of mind and objects. Because he's still making the stage. Because he's still making the stage. He's making the stage of, you know, attachment and... He's still positing something, according to the teacher. Now, I guess in order, I guess, so I think Jim's comment's good that it's too intellectual means, well, you know, if I may say so, that for you it's still intellectual.

[21:35]

For Yangshan, it might not have been intellectual at all. He might have been like really wholeheartedly into this, you know, as much as he could get his life into this, he might have been into it. But I think it's good if maybe in order to, like with this case in general, we had to study this case for seven weeks before I started feeling like people were really getting into it. It may take this story, too. We'll have to talk about it for a long time before it becomes non-intellectual and you can really get into it. Well, for him to say there's no stage of completion, he's acknowledging a stage of completion. Acknowledging or positing? Yeah. Is it akin to somebody saying it's great to be humble? That kind of thing? Yeah. It's akin to that. What if the teacher said what is it that's not completed?

[22:39]

What is it that's not at all? That could have been another way to find out whether he's positing anything or still dealing with mind and objects instead of telling him that he was he could have tested him and that was one of Yang you know Guishan in a couple places asked Yangshan how he tests people when they come and one of his main ways of testing people was to say hey you and see what they did and if they turned he would say what is it and then By their response, he could tell whether they were positing mind and objects, just as he had been tested over and over by his teacher. When he turned to look at something, what did he see? Okay, well, let's go on to this next case. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Sir, what was your question about this?

[23:42]

My question was whether Weishan's response, if this is still completely known as an object, was because Yangshan was creating a conditional description. A conditional description of his understanding of the way So let's study this next case, okay? This is a case about meeting, two people meeting. And they said their instructions to each other are not on the usual level of the teacher teaching the disciple.

[24:48]

The introduction to the case in the Book of Serenity is meeting the strong, be weak. Meeting the soft, be hard. If both are hard and hit each other, there will surely be one damaged. But tell me, How do you interchange? Or how do you meet? And this is also, this case is case 49 in the Blue Cliff Record. And the introduction there, the Blue Cliff Record is historically ahead of the Book of Serenity. So here's the introduction that appears in the Book of the Blue Cliff Record. Piercing, penetrating... One takes the drum and captures the flag. Fortified, entrenched, one inspects the front and oversees the rear.

[26:00]

One who sits on the tiger's head and takes the tiger's tail is not yet an adept. Though the ox head disappears and a horse head returns, this too is not yet extraordinary. But say, how is it when a person who has possessed beyond measure, who has passed beyond measure, how is it when someone who has passed beyond measure comes? To test, I'll cite this old case. Look. San Sheng asked Shui Feng, the golden fish that's passed through the net What does it use for food? And Shui Fung says, When you come out of the net, then I'll tell you. San Shang says, The teacher of 1,500 people, yet you don't even know a saying.

[27:09]

Shui Fung says, My tasks as abbot are many. the Blue Cliff Record translates it, is translated as, Shui Fung asked, I mean, San Chang asked Shui Fung, I wonder, what does the golden fish who has passed through the net use for food? But another translation is more like, the golden fish has passed through the net. More like, in this first one here, it's more like the golden fish that's passed through the net. The golden fish that's passed through the net, or I wonder what does the golden fish who has passed through the net, but another translation is more emphatic of the golden fish has passed through the net. That interpretation is that that statement is he's saying that a golden fish has passed through the net, not what he can feed it.

[28:13]

And Sanchang says, I'll wait for you to pass through, and then I'll tell you. So I just feel like telling you what these commentators have said about this, and then you can deal with that. Okay? We've got two adepts here. one's a little older than the other one. Shui-Feng's older than San-Sheng. San-Sheng we saw in case 13 of this book where Rinzai's about to die and San-Sheng's right there nearby him and he says, you know, after I pass away, uh, don't destroy my treasury of true Dharma eyes."

[29:23]

And Sanchong says, how could I dare destroy the teacher's treasury of true Dharma eyes? And Linji says, well, if someone asked you about it, what would you say? And he shouted. And Linji said, who would have thought that my treasury of true Dharma eyes would perish with this blind ass? And people say that when Sangchang yelled at that time, that was the end of yelling in the Rinzai line. All the yelling that happened after that was fake. He did the last real yell. And he destroyed Rinzai's teaching. Because Rinzai was the great yeller, the great shouter. And Sangchang made a shout that put an end to shouts. Therefore, he became Rinzai's successor and destroyed Rinzai's teaching. So he was, you know, an outstanding student of the way to make obsolete the great Master Linji.

[30:32]

So this is the person who's coming to meet Shreyafong. And he says, the golden fish has broken out of the net. What's the net in this case? What's the net? Yeah? Mind and objects? Yeah. He's broken out of the net of mind and objects. So, what do you feed him? Yeah, you feed him mind and objects in the form of, well, when you break out, I'll let you know. What? Why is he asking? Yeah, why is he asking? Why is he asking? If the fish is broken out, what's he doing asking? And yet, it says in the blue clip record, it says, observe how the two of them hold fast to their territories.

[31:48]

towering like two 10,000-fathom walls. So, in one sense, you think, well, why does Sanchong have to come and ask this guy this if the fish is broken out of the net? At the same time, he just had to come and establish his territory. And... In one sense, I think that some of this kind of martial or militant or aggressive energy that we sometimes see in these Zen stories is, I don't know what to say. Some people have some problem with it. I do too, actually. But there is this thing about assertion. So, Sanchang has come and asserted his position. as a, in the form of a 10,000 fathom wall. And then the older, the senior master puts up another 10,000 foot wall.

[32:56]

And then it says, well, most people, actually it didn't say most people, it says anybody else who could come and present a 10,000 foot wall once Shui Fung put up another 10,000 foot wall. Anybody else would have been stopped by that. But since San Xiong was an adept, he could come back one more time with, you're the teacher of 1,500 monks and you don't know what to say. And... Then Shui Fung says, I'm really busy with my job. Now, another translation, that sounds like he's making an excuse, but in our translation is, I've got better things to do than to talk to you. As a matter of fact, I've made a mistake by carrying on this conversation this long. It's really, you know, not worth my time. Could even just saying that, as Abbott or many, it's like chopping wood and carrying water.

[34:05]

In other words, get... The answer lies in getting completely into what you're doing. Could he have been what? Saying what? Could he have been saying that what he says might ask to that as a better meaning? Yes. It's like chopping wood and carrying water. Just do what you do completely. Yes, that's right. However, he's not talking to Sanchon when he says that. These people aren't talking like that. They aren't talking to anybody else. That's why they can talk this way. And that's why they have broken out of the net because they don't talk to anybody else. That's what I see. And when he says, you know, I'm busy with my work. I don't have time to talk to you or I've already wasted enough time talking to you. He's not talking to anybody else about that.

[35:07]

He's saying, I'm doing my work right now. In other words, but he's not saying that. He is doing his work. His work is to say that, what he said. And the commentaries say, go to quite a bit of length to point out that there's no winning and losing in this interchange. These people cannot lose anymore or win anymore when they meet people. That's not what they're into. It looks like that. And they actually play the role of, you know, martial interchange. And they even use these images of what one is piercing and penetrating, takes the drum, you know, and captures the flag. The other one, fortified and entrenched, inspects the front and oversees the rear. This is kind of a martial interchange. These guys are playing out a war. And there's no winning and losing. they're holding to their territory. And then it says, but then the other one says, when the other one's strong, when this guy comes with his strength, you know, the fish has broken out of the net of subject and object, of mind and object.

[36:31]

The fish has broken out. What are you going to feed it? How do you feed it? coming with that piercing, penetrating, aggressive energy of stating his position and asking for recognition. Strong. So, does watching the jigger come back strong? Well, yes and no. He actually doesn't come back strong. He puts up a 10,000-foot, a 10,000-fathom wall, but softly, by saying, when you get out, I'll let you know. He can't help but diminish this guy somewhat, but not in a damaging way.

[37:34]

Not in a damaging way. And how can you tell it's not in a damaging way? Because his response. And he's still got plenty of energy. Now most other people wouldn't have been damaged, but would have thought they had been damaged. Because they would have thought that he was talking about them. But he wasn't. He was just being soft because they were being hard. And he was being 10,000 fathoms tall soft. which leaves the other person in perfect position to come back again with lots of energy if they understand what he just did. And he did come back with lots of energy. And then again, he responds in a way that they both survive and live happily ever after, with names, so we can find out what happened to him after this. That's what the commentators say, and that's what I say too.

[38:37]

Now what are you going to do about it? Yeah? What would be the context for a host meeting a host like this? Pardon? What would be the context for this kind of meeting? I want to avoid the Y word, but... The context? You mean how do they meet? Yeah, when would a host, you know, meeting a host, where would that happen, or when would that happen? What is it? Sancheng. Actually, Sancheng probably wasn't Sancheng yet. Sometimes, just so you know who they're talking about when they tell these stories, they name these people by their names that they had later, before they had the names, just so it's easier to understand who they're talking about. When Sanchang was talking to Linji, his name wasn't Sanchang yet. But nobody knows him by his monk's name. They only know him by the name of his mountain, which means three sages or three holy people. That's the name of the mountain he became the abbot of later. So when he was with Linji, that wasn't his name. And when he was coming here, probably wasn't his name yet either.

[39:38]

He had already finished studying with Linji at this time. He had already become a successor. And he was wandering about to see, you know, to check out, what do you call it, to check out the teaching that he had inherited from Linji. Well, I got, let's check out this, you know, this Lingji's thing that I destroyed and see what it is. So bring it, let's bring it to this great teacher who I never met before. Bring it and show it to him. So here it is. What do you have to say? What do you do? That's the context. So, if, when you finish studying with your teacher, And your teacher says, you know, something like, oh my God, you've destroyed my teaching. But what can I say? You know, you did it really well.

[40:41]

Then it's time to leave and go, you know, bother somebody else and leave the wrecked teacher to try to recover. Maybe paint some pictures or something with the rest of, you know, do some gardening, move some rocks around or something. Maybe take up cooking. You're still, if you can keep yourself somewhat entertained. Most guys can't keep going much after that because, you know, you know, but it doesn't matter to me. They, you know, they can get a new body. And then it'll be hard again for a while. So then you go out on pilgrimage and check it out with some other people, which should be fun. Will they be able to stand up to what your teacher has recognized?

[41:47]

Let's see. Yes? You're saying that these guys can't really lose. They can't lose and they can't beat anybody either. So, first of all, it seems to me that the one thing, when someone goes on a program, if someone has reached that state, it's fully realized, and they go out, they're not going out to check what they've got, because it doesn't need checking. They have, there's no problem with competition. No, there's no problem of lack of confidence, but even though there's not, you can deepen it by getting it reflected. The realization can go deeper even though you have plenty of confidence. So similarly, if they are encountering someone of similar nature, there's no thought of...

[42:50]

I think we repeat only sort of bringing forth another expression. Right. Bringing forth more expression and in a new situation, when you bring forth expression in a new situation, it gets deeper. This thing can be full and complete and go deeper. And realization can, perfect realization can get deeper. and be implemented and brought forth under new circumstances, like, again, in his last case. He had realization. He couldn't bring it forth and use the water and the wind. He couldn't use it yet. This man can use circumstances to enable and facilitate his realization. And that's what he's doing. And he's choosing to do it with an adept. Now, he probably also did it with everybody he met. but when he met this guy, they wrote it down. They even wrote down lesser interchanges, or not lesser interchanges, but interchanges where the student was at a different stage in their development.

[43:59]

Yes? Does attachment have anything to do with it? Yes, that's what makes the different levels is attachment, or less and less attachment. And even though the attachment may be completely eliminated or dissolved, still interaction can deepen that total dissolution by giving another example of it. and making it all the more wonderful in the world and giving more people a chance to access it. Because it's not just that this one person has dissolved attachment. Their dissolving attachment has to do with other people dissolving theirs. So you see, it gets deeper and deeper if other people can witness and share in it by these theatrical events. Is that what the fish eats? Yeah. The fish eats these interchanges. Mm-hmm. Yes. When I read this, I didn't have a thought of a... That's the way they are at the beginning.

[45:08]

Okay? In the end, they are both dead and decrepit. Okay, so one guy comes on like... You know? Big time... Assertion. and challenge. Dangerous, solitary, all by himself, alone, nobody else, and dangerous, and abrupt, and lofty. Okay? The other guy meets it. Not, you know, just reflects it. But not in a way that hurts him. Then, he comes back with this decrepit comment And the other one, decrepit too. You want to be big time cliff-like?

[46:10]

Okay, let's be big time cliffs. Want to be wimpy and give me a compliment? And also, you know, they're not talking about somebody else. That's how they meet. They meet by not talking about somebody else. They know how to do that. They know how to meet somebody without talking to somebody else. This is a meeting. One more question. I noticed that... Okay. You guys wait. He wants one more question. I noticed that when the first statement is made that Sanchong refers to going through the net, But that same preposition isn't used later. And I wondered if there's anything to be said for the fact that what makes me think of this is the verse line, that the fish sort of jumps out of the water to break free.

[47:17]

And this makes me wonder whether or not Tsai-Shang is wrong in thinking that fish passes through the net, but rather sort of have to come up above the whole net and water straight into the realm of the air to get out, or whether or not that's just... Which verse says what? Well, the verse, I guess, says, in the very beginning of the verse, it says, you know, ascending are tears of waves, there's clouds and thunder, but then it breaks through, and look at the function. Mm-hmm. So we're first descending the tiers and ways, and I'm thinking here as the fish is trying to break out of the net. It's going to break out of the net, not by trying to pass through one of the little holes in the knots, but by just jumping straight out of the whole concept of net. And so it leaps up magnificently. Look at the great function. I'm just sort of picturing this fish out of the water for the first time. Boom, there's this whole other world. It's not a water world. And so that made me think that maybe Sun Yat-sen was saying the fish is going to pass through the net. And that maybe wasn't the right understanding.

[48:18]

And so Zui Feng says, when you come out of the net, which didn't necessarily say up out of it, but it didn't reiterate passing through, which might have been a wrong understanding. I don't know what to say about that. Um... I don't think that... I don't think anything wrong about what Sangchun's understanding at all. Um... But rather that, uh,

[49:21]

He is talking about being free in the sense of case 32, of breaking out of that vortex of subject-object dualism. He is talking about being free of that. But he's not just talking about it. He's expressing it. And I think his expression is really good. However, at the moment, and that good expression that he manifested there. The other teacher saw it, recognized it, affirmed it. But the way he recognizes and affirms it is that he himself also expresses himself, just as tall, just as solitary, and just as dangerous. And because of that, he kind of sounds like he's putting him down.

[50:24]

Part of the dynamic here is that when you express yourself, in some sense you don't recognize the other. But it doesn't help to sort of like not express yourself in order to acknowledge the other. That won't do it either. So it may sound a little bit like he's criticizing, but he can't. He can't for another reason. He can't because this guy really is who he is. And we've got like documented proof that this must be an exceptionally fine student of the way. And also he can't because he sees him anyway. He already recognizes him. This guy's great. And how does he express how great he is? By being himself completely. But when you're yourself completely, there's, in a sense, it's almost like the other person is put down. But before you express yourself and almost like put them down, they put you down because you were recognizing them.

[51:28]

We don't know how it was for him when he was awestruck by this monk. But he was. I think he was. That's why this guy didn't lose. So the funny thing is that when you really express yourself to somebody like that, they come back to you with a similar expression and most people then, what do you call it, most people then back off and lose their confidence. Even though he came out with a lot of confidence, when the other person says, you know, without talking about somebody else, recognizes their own face in full form and full realization and then express their happiness at seeing that with full face and full realization, most people wither that, wither. even though they're being completely recognized and appreciated, because they're being recognized by the very thing that they want to be recognized by, namely a 10,000-fathom cliff is recognizing them.

[52:30]

That's the kind of recognition we want, is from something that really is there, that has independent, autonomous function. And that's why he was traveling, is to meet somebody like that, to see if somebody would see him and see him so fully and appreciate him so much that that person would dare to be himself. It's like, if you don't think the person has realized himself, then you kind of like feel like, well, geez, I better not realize myself because, you know, that'll, you know, discourage them or whatever. But when you see somebody who's really, and you feel like, Now, can I be, since they're doing, since they're letting themselves be themselves, well, maybe I can be myself. Which is what I sort of like want to be into anyway. And, and, and, but not like that, exactly. Just, it's, and then he survives and comes back with this other comment and he comes back with another comment.

[53:37]

So I think there's Rick and Bill. In the In case 14, it says something about the Sean that when he was young, he determined the once a giant snake, grown old and senile, this was the children's song. When that commentary mentioned where they used to be 10,000 family clips, now they're falling in several times similar. with the idea that perhaps working with one another, too bad. And, like, Deshaun was thinking of children, and I expected to be there. Mm-hmm. Well, yeah, but also, that's a story where he lets things go twice, right? Yeah. Um... So Dushan's the guy who, he didn't shout.

[54:40]

What he did was, he used to beat people 30, he used to give people 30 blows whether they talked or didn't talk. He was a very fierce guy. He was the guy who, yeah, he was that guy that that old lady got, you know. All right. That old lady got him at the cake stand. And then he went and studied with Dragon Pond and woke up and became this real fierce Zen teacher. And used to beat people all the time with dirty blows. And then in this case 14, here he is with his attendant You know, the tendon's giving him kind of a hard time, and he sort of just lets it go. Kind of a tendon needle.

[55:42]

Just lets it go. So they say he just listened to children's songs in his old age. You think that's pretty good, huh? Yeah. Well, in his case, it sure is. So we're working towards that gradually, some of us faster than others. I mean, it feels like these two adepts are trying to break each other down and cooperating in this process of having, I forget how it was put, the towers are disheveled and fallen. I don't think they're trying to break each other down. I think they're just trying to implement freedom. And they just use that thing of kind of becoming decrepit and soft at the end. But it could have started out that way and switched to the other side, too.

[56:43]

They could have wound up with two towering cliffs locked in intense confrontation. But that isn't the way the story goes. I don't think it's better to be listening to children's stories, although I think it is good to listen to children's stories or children's songs when that's what's happening, if that's your job. So I think you actually made some comments on this story, which I'll bring up in a minute. Bill? I sort of think that all of us in this classroom implement freedom. Yeah, sure we do. The last sentence in the introduction, but tell me how do you initiate it. That led me to think that there might be talking about interchanging part or soft by taking a soft position to actually be part, or all, and short, or whatever.

[58:01]

And it also led me to think about conversations like this that take place out in the world, for lack of a better phrase, you know, at work or in a family situation. And how it's difficult not to look at this type of conversation or the tone of this conversation as having a certain amount of hurt in it. And I wonder how I can leave this class and have this kind of a conversation with my family or my coworkers or friends and not have that element of hurt. You're saying that they're not hurting you. But I see the potential for hurt and causing pain by saying these types of things. These are strong statements, if you think about it. Well, do you have somebody coming up to you and telling you that they've broken out of the net?

[59:07]

Yes. You do? I don't believe it necessarily, but people do come and say those stuff to me. Okay. If you don't believe it, then you don't have a playmate. And lay off. If you believe it, then you've got a playmate. And lay on. And if you have a playmate, then the hurt's not over. It's, you know, you might be wrong, but basically you think you've got somebody here who's telling the truth. Now, usually the truth that people are telling... is that they haven't broken out of the net. That's usually what they're saying. When people come down to talking like that, I don't find very many liars.

[60:12]

Just coming down to that topic, to that issue, is their realization of this kind of issue, that kind of conversation, I usually find people are pretty honest. And when they start kind of like slipping into like looking at maybe they consider saying that there's getting close or that they have realized, I feel like they're pretty honest about their understanding. In the last few days I've been hearing again and again, well, how would I know? You know, how would I know? And I've said, you know, the standard response is it's not a matter of knowing or not knowing. It's a matter of certainty. If there's, you know, a case 19 of the, what is it, the gateless gate. So he says, he says, well, how do you know? He said, it's not a matter of knowing or not knowing. Knowing is just a delusion.

[61:18]

If you have any, if there's any dharma by which you deduce realization. It's not realization, because realization is not something that you can recognize as an object. It's not that kind of thing. And it's also not like you don't know anything, like blank consciousness. It's a matter of no doubt. It's a matter of certainty. And I don't find people lying about being certain. I sometimes find people say, I know, but then it's pretty easy to point out that that's just an, you know, you've got to just bring in the sutras and say, look, it says right here, you're not supposed to be depending on some objective knowledge to prove that you have realization. Realization is not a state of consciousness. It is a state of mind that doesn't depend on anything. So if you know it, there's still something extra there. You haven't completely, what does it say here? Where does it say that? It says it's square. It says, when there's enough... What does it say?

[62:26]

When there's enough... Oh, when contending, there's not enough. When conceding, there's extra. Is it only possible to have these conversations with... Disciples of Buddha. We'll have what conversations? About this state of... What do you mean by disciple of Buddha? Somebody who's received the precepts or taken refuge, or what do you mean? Or is not studying a different faith. You mean like a Christian? You mean, can you have a conversation like this with a Christian?

[63:29]

That's what you're saying? Well, no, no. There are certain people, not just Christians, who know. Right? It is possible to have a conversation with a Buddhist who knows stuff. It is possible to have a conversation with a Buddhist about this and to talk about how this kind of thing is not a matter of a state of consciousness. It's a matter of this unsupported thought. which means it's not supported by objects of thought that you know about, or it's not supported by the color blue, or the smell of deer, or whatever. It's not supported by these things, even though those things are happening. This discussion can happen with a Buddhist. It can also happen with a Christian. It can happen with these people who know you can talk to them about this. I do find that people know stuff and think, well, I know this and I know that.

[64:31]

That conversation I do have with people. And that's not people aren't lying there either. They're just saying, well, I know this because of... And they give me a state of mind which depends on something, and we discuss that, and I point out, that's fine. This is another example of a state of consciousness which depends on something, which is fine. No problem. You know that. This is the way your mind works? Okay, fine. In Buddhism we're talking about a different kind of thing. We're talking about a state of mind that's not a state of mind which doesn't depend on anything. Okay? That's what we're talking about here. And this conversation can happen with people who have that. And that's not... When people say they know stuff, they're not lying about that either. They do actually say and think they know or they don't know. A lot of times they say they don't know. Which is fine too. That's not a problem. I tell them, that's not a problem. And the knowing's not a problem either, just as long as you know that knowing is simply delusion.

[65:34]

When you know something, it's delusion. Yeah, well, you can warm up to the idea. But I think Buddhists are just as shocked by that as... Well, maybe not, but I think Buddhists are pretty shocked by the idea that their precious little things that they believe are delusions. Whatever you believe, whatever thing is out there that you believe in, that's a delusion by definition. Anything out there, this is the process of delusion. No problem, as long as you don't think that that's enlightenment. Buddhists are those who realize this stuff is delusion. Sentient beings are those who think it's enlightenment. and I don't care what their card says, it's the same. Now, the discussion about whether there is certainty without depending on any objects, there too I do not find people, most people say, well, I'm not certain. And the reason they're not certain is because they're not thorough enough.

[66:37]

You have to be completely thorough to be certain, and most people That's when it comes down to that. Most people get fairly honest about it if you ask them, have you completely followed through on this? Because if they have, then we can talk. And they kind of know that if they haven't, they're going to have to talk about something that they said they were going to be able to talk about, but they can't because they're not certain. And again, some people like this guy come and they're certain, but when they meet somebody else who's certain, then they think, well, maybe I'm not so certain. And that's good. That's good to come and check it out to see, does it get deeper? Or is it kind of like, I'm not so sure now. You start slipping away from certainty back into like maybe thinking or, you know, knowing and that kind of stuff. I actually find people... I'm actually encouraged by the conversations that people... I find people... people who are looking this closely are getting pretty honest already.

[67:40]

And usually the questions get done a little bit into the... a little bit more into the details and the nitty-gritty of honesty. And that's part of what's required here is honesty. Not only entering into the processes of your mind, but then honesty about what you... What's going on for you? Yes? Why does Shui-Feng here... You say he acknowledges San-Sheng, in a way, or he meets him, but he seems to be saying, well, when you come out of the moment, then I'll tell you. It seems what his meaning seems to be is... The discount, like you say, he's putting him down, you know. His way of meeting this great self or presenting is to say, well, you're not out of the net.

[68:44]

When you're out of the net, I'll talk to you. It does seem like that. It's true. Can you offer a different interpretation of that statement, Alan? Yes, you may. The, um... When Shui Fung says, when you come out of the net, then I'll tell you, you may simply be saying, you say tomato, I say tomato, you say potato, I say potato. And you may also be pointing out that net, no net, which way are you talking to me now? So, furthermore, Coming out of the net is no different than being completely in a net. Perhaps. Not perhaps. Okay. To extrapolate, he strikes square in the middle of the net, and the net is completely enveloping him, and he's broken pre-up. So, it seems to me that Shui Fong is just showing grandmotherly kindness by saying this.

[69:53]

I think so too. And I think Sanchong's showing Shui Fung grandmother the kindness to give him a chance to be a grandmother. Without people like this, you know, it's hard to be a grandmother. Because to be grandmother with somebody who's not being assertive, well, you know, but to be grandmother like this, wow. So the funny thing is that if he didn't talk in such a way that you could interpret that he was put down... which is like, I mean, I think it's pretty obvious that you can make that interpretation that he's kind of putting him down a little bit. He's denting his reputation slightly there. If there wasn't that possible interpretation, then you might think that if he talked that way to the guys, if he changed his language and did talk that way to the guy that that would be the reason that he showed that he didn't really respect him this is what I just said I can say again and if I say it enough times you'll definitely understand let's say he said something more obviously complimentary back to him

[71:20]

Like the guy comes in and says, you know, I broke out of the net, what are you going to feed me? And he says, I'll give you the best food possible, or whatever, you know, something that you could like, you could say, now that for sure was not a put-down. Then you might think by that, that, well, what if he did sort of say something like, well, something derogatory, then if he said something derogatory, would that mean then that he took back his respect of the guy? And even then you might say, which is often the case, like in the case that Rick brought up, when this monk, when the attendant attacked Dushan and Dushan sort of let it go, when a Zen teacher, when somebody comes and says, I did great, and the Zen teacher says, oh, you did great, that reflection is sometimes seen as ironic. The main rhetorical device of Zen teaching is irony. So, if if his respect of him depends on what he says, then... then it's not... this isn't the game they're playing.

[72:38]

So he should be able to say something which sounds deprecating and have it not be that way. And in fact, again, it is... I think it is usually... not usually, it is often the case that when you assert your position in the face of anything, it does, you know, in some sense not recognize the other side. It's very difficult at the moment of assertion to not forget about recognizing the other side at that time. And I personally feel that I assert myself most fully with people who I feel are asserting themselves. That's the people I feel most comfortable asserting myself with. So when I assert myself fully, or even get to start close to it, it means that I'm with people who I respect.

[73:40]

However, when I start expressing myself fully, it does tend to make dents in people's reputation. You know, like I was crossing the city the other day and this very energetic woman was talking away and I said, you want to fight? You know, she had enough energy, I thought I could say that, you know. But then I said, maybe too much. Now sometimes, of course, I just screw up and get mad. So it's hard to tell sometimes. Yeah. But I haven't gotten mad in a Koan class for about five years. The last time I got mad was in Tassajara in about 1987, 86. 86, I think it was. Didn't work very well. And then about in 1989 or so, I looked like I got mad with Pam Weiss. Was anybody there at that time? She was okay, but a lot of other people were, oh, God, I hope she doesn't do that to me.

[74:46]

But it was okay between us. It was very intense, you know. She went, Pam's sitting there, Pam just went, and I went, and everybody went, are you okay, Pam? She was. She was okay. You know, she's running for the board. And you can vote against her. She's strong enough to be voted against. But if you look at those people who ran for the board, but you think, oh, jeez, can't vote against them, they wouldn't be able to take it. So I guess I should vote for them. So when you express yourself to somebody who's just expressed herself... At that moment, it may look like . And I think it's good that it can look like that in this case, because in fact it shows verbally that there's a reality to each one of them expressing their position.

[75:58]

It was slightly a put-down for this guy to come up and talk to this teacher that way, too. A little bit of a put-down. What does he think he is coming up and talking to her that way? I mean, it's pretty far out if you think about it. Can you imagine? Walking in, of course we don't know the whole context, but walking in, meeting like a teacher that you travel, sometimes going in and telling them, you know, okay, I freed myself from subject-object, I freed myself from the entanglement of mind and object, okay, now what are you going to feed me? Pretty, I'm a confident person here. Now what are you going to do? Imagine that. And I think, and again, I think, he sat there and he said, wow, okay, all right, let's tango. You really want to dance with me? Here I am. And then, and so, and then, but the second time, it's a little different than the first time.

[77:07]

They say, okay, we did that one now. We did the big, tall, powerful, you know, adepts meeting each other. Now let's do this other thing. Oh, you can't even answer a question. Oh, yeah, I can't. And, you know, even if I could, I don't know if I'd do it with you. When I was thinking about this during the week, I thought that response is like, who would have thought this would have gone down with such a blind ass? And that my tasks of the avid are many, is not knowing is nearest. That's kind of how I... I hope that... Seems like it's not knowing. Is nearest. What? Is nearest.

[78:09]

Not knowing is nearest. And I don't know if Shui Fung had heard about this story of succession between San Xiong and Lin Ji. I don't know if you heard that story. But the succession story is like that too, you see. Lin Ji, totally floored by San Xiong's shout, in one sense compliments him by saying, okay, nice going, you have destroyed my teaching. Just like I told you not to, you did it. And who should it be that destroys my teaching? A blind ass. An ignorant fool of all people. And isn't that exactly the one that should do it? So I don't know how widely spread that story was, but if it was, that would make all the more reason why Trey Plung would know that he could talk like that, too, to this guy.

[79:09]

Yeah, I mean, it takes a lot to get an audience with these people and have them talk like that to you. Like imagine, you know, the Dalai Lama talking that way to somebody. You'd have to be somebody pretty impressive. Usually he's, you know, does stuff like, you know, talks about how humble he is and, you know, gee, I don't understand very well and you're really good and stuff like that. That's the way he talks to most people, you know. Gee, you're understanding really good and I don't understand very well. So, you know, imagine what it would take to get him to sort of like really put you down. I mean, aside from the people that the bodyguards won't even let get near to them, you know, I'm not talking about psychotics.

[80:13]

I'm talking about people who talk like psychotics, but who aren't. This is kind of a psychotic way of talking. And, oh, is it somebody, oh, somebody I gave a class in Berkeley, uh, uh, And this guy, who I went to college with, was in the class. And I think maybe after the first session there, or during the first session or something, he said, this guy is dissociating. He's psychotic. He's a psychologist. Was he talking about you? Yeah, he was talking about me.

[81:17]

Talking about me, the way I was acting. And then he said, then we sat, and then he saw my face while I was sitting and he changed his mind. I think because when I sit, my face shows so much suffering. Psychotics don't suffer like I do. They don't. Psychotics are always talking like, you know, hey, I got out of the net. They're like... They're like, they're entrenched in that position. Whereas if you're not crazy when you sit, you obviously are suffering as, you know, as much as anybody else. You're just completely, you know, in the mud, in the net, you know, in the sewer, just like everybody else.

[82:25]

That's where this outrageous statements coming from, it's grounded in profound suffering. Then when you say these outrageous things, they're not just like, you know, totally airhead plus believing it, psychosis. They're just airhead. And knowing that it's airhead, but enjoying it for what it is. So that's how he could come and talk to this guy that way because he wasn't talking, you know, that way at all. He was just being outrageous and seeing if he could get a little recognition. And he did, but the recognition he got was another guy being outrageous, which sounded like it put him down, and so that's the story. But it's not over yet. There's more subtleties, and I don't know what they are yet, but I think they will come out next week if you come back here

[83:29]

and try to practice this. You know? But you don't have to be like Sanchong if you're not like Sanchong. I'm not telling you to pretend like you feel like he does. I'm not telling you to pretend like you've broken out of the net if you haven't. So you keep working on case 32, so to speak. You keep working on thinking you're thinking that you're thinking. You keep being thorough about what you're doing And when the time comes that you feel like you've been thorough and you've completed your work, then let's hear about that. And then if something happens at that point, let's hear about that. But this is what it's like when you come out of that process and start interacting with somebody else who wants to meet you there. At least that's what I'm saying tonight. We'll see what it's like next week, okay? In this case, yes, I already told you what it is, but go ahead and read it again.

[84:37]

You can read the commentaries in both books, Book of Record and Book of Serenity. The commentaries are basically the same, but maybe you'd like to read them. I did. What's the case number in that Book of Record? 49. 49. Oh, wait a second. Did you have a question? What? You're pointing at something? Yes. Fish. Is that a goldfish that broke out of the net? Is that a fish flying in the air? It's a zeppelin. Thank you.

[85:29]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_85.34