Audio loading...

Welcome! You can log in or create an account to save favorites, edit keywords, transcripts, and more.


Suggested Keywords:


Good afternoon, everyone. This morning, I couldn't finish Paragraph 3, so we start Page 4, 1, 2, 3rd sentence. The reason is that each of the four great elements and the five aggregates at the present moment cannot be grasped as our self or traced as someone else. Therefore, the colors of our mind caused by the flowers or the moon also should not be grasped as being our self. And yet we think them as our self. We think of what is not our self as our self.


We cannot do anything about this. When we clarify that there is no color we dislike and there is no color we should approach and long for, then the activities naturally in the way are the original face that is never hidden. The four great elements refer to earth, water, fire, and wind. Those four are the elements of not only our body, but everything, according to ancient Indian thinking. Scandals, or aggregates.


Our body, lupa, and the other four are the functions of our mind. Sensation, perception, formation, and consciousness. So those five are getting together and we think this five skandhas is me. But usually we think, you know, or we say, this is my body and this is my mind. That means these five skandhas or body and mind are owned by this one. Right? So we think We are like the owner of the car. And the car is five scandals. But Buddha taught when he said an Atman, an Atman is a negation of Atman.


Atman is something like the owner of the car. And when these five scandals are broken, then the owner gets a new car. That is how we are reborn. But Buddha said, when he said, anatma or no-self, there is no such owner of this body and mind. Only this collection of five skandhas are there. But still we say, you know, this is my body and this is my mind. And conventionally we accept it. And otherwise we cannot say anything. You know, for example, I say I was born 64 years ago. And when I was born my body was like this.


And after that my body getting bigger and bigger for about 20 years, less than 20 years, and then it stays for a while, and gets smaller and smaller, shrinks, and sometimes disappears. So my body is constantly changing, and my mind is always also changing. I say when I was a baby and when I was a teenager, when I was in my 40s or 50s, it said there is something called I which doesn't change if we don't put this I This I goes through the stage of my life.


When I was a baby, when I was a boy, when I was a teenager, and now I am a beginning of aged person. Not too aged yet. But there's something which is called I is going through these stages. Otherwise, this stage doesn't make sense. As a reality, everything is changing. Then why I can say, when I was a baby, when I was a teenager, we see some continuity or identity. My baby food is different from your baby food. When I was a baby, it's not your baby food, when you are a baby. It's different babies.


And that baby is the origin of this person. So there is some continuity. And yet, there's no such thing called I. But our way of thinking requests call for something which doesn't change. Otherwise we cannot say even the word change. Right? I have been changing. But there's no such I. How can we say? How can we think? So this I, something which doesn't change, is a kind of a necessity. when we think and communicate using words and letters and concepts. But we are kind of, we are deceived by this nature or necessity of language.


And we think this I is really there, really existing. And this I owns this body and mind. and operate this body and mind. The definition of Atman in Buddhism, it appears in Abhidharmakosha, is Atman is something, jō, itsu, shu, sai. Jō is permanent. Permanent means something which doesn't change. And that is only one. There's no two Atman in one person. It's confusing. So only one.


And shu is to be the owner. And sai means to operate. So the definition of Atman is within these five skandhas there is something which doesn't change and which is only one and which owns this body and mind, these five skandhas and operates it like the operator or owner of a car drives a car and Own. Own. O-W-N. Operate. [...] S-A-I. Yes. Sai. [...] Jo-I-Tsu-Shu-Sai.


And the Buddha taught that there is no such thing. Only body and mind. You know, we call the car as, you know, automobile. But car is not really automobile. Car need a driver. But this five skandhas is really automobile. There is no operator, no owner, but still moving. It's something very interesting thing. Anyway, that is what Buddha taught. So we hear Only five skandhas are here. Body and sensation, perception, formation and consciousness are only there. And those are, as I said this morning, six sense organs, i.e.


ear, nose, tongue, body and mind, and objects of six sense organs, that is what we experience. When we encounter something, we have some experience, and something happens within our mind. As I said, that is consciousness. And our experience is stored within this deepest layer of consciousness called alaya. And the seventh consciousness, often translated as ego consciousness, or in Sanskrit, manas, grasps this seed of past experiences as me. And this ego seventh consciousness controls the first six consciousnesses.


That's why our view is self-centered and our reaction towards certain things or situations or objects is determined by depending upon what kind of seed we have. That means what kind of experiences we had in the past. the way we see things and the way we think, the way we take action are different based on what kind of karma we have. That is how this person becomes shohak and these five skandhas is called shohak. So this is not really me as a shohaku. But this is a kind of a, how can I say, like a fruit of many people's work.


And I, shohaku, is only one part of it. Since I was born, I was taken care of by my parents and the families. and I was educated at Japanese schools by many different teachers and some of them are very good teachers and some of them are not so good teachers so I have some preference but how I... how can I say... make decision which direction I go I should go And finally, I met my teacher, Kosho Uchiyama Roshi, and he gave me a decisive influence. Since then, it's almost like I was shaped by my teacher. When I first met his teacher, I was 17 years old.


I didn't have my own way of thinking yet. I had many questions about life and I had no answer. So the answer of my questions was kind of given by Uchiyama Roshi and Dogen Zen's teaching and Buddha's teaching. That is how this person becomes shohaku. And my willpower, my decision, my effort is a really tiny part of it. So, you know, in these writings, those flowers, moon, or spring and fall means a very good, joyous time, and autumn is a beginning of winter, that is cold, painful, hard time. All those different situations


shapes this person as shohaku. And when these five skandhas disperse, then shohaku disperse. And yet, I have to take responsibility about what these five skandhas are doing. Even though I was shaped by my teachers, but I cannot say I do this because of my teachers told me to do so. But whatever I do is my responsibility. So even though this is a work or fruits of many people, Still, this is me. So I have to accept these five skandhas as sure, and I have to take responsibility for what I'm doing. That is how I think we are living.


Please. This is the part I have a snag with the teaching. You said the five skandhas disperse, and you're no longer, but there is this belief I'm not sure. The next birth, is it Shuhaku or not? I mean, you know, Shakyamuni Buddha was Sumedha, and he asked Arhat Bodhichitta, and next lifetime he was maybe a deer. Is that the same person or not the same person? But what is it that transmigrates? That is the question. If there is no substance called I, what is transmigrating? That is my question to Buddha's teaching. And many, you know, Buddhist philosophers or teachers try to answer this question.


If there is no self, what is transmigrating? And there are some answers, but I don't think any of those answers are successful. I still have questions, so don't ask me. I have no desire to make another question, another answer. Well, that's the big question, but what about this karma? Yeah, I mean, that's an accepted Buddhist idea, that we accumulate karma and that that in some way is very forward. How does that get assigned to the person? You mean after death? Fat influence? While I'm living, what I did in the past is my karma, and I'm limited and conditioned with my past karma. That is true.


But I'm not sure if this karma is carried to the next lifetime with this person's something. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure what I'm doing can be is continued by someone else. Like, you know, for example, you know, my teacher is no longer here, but I received his teaching and I took over his vow. So what I am doing now is, in a sense, kind of a reincarnation of my teacher. So my teacher is still alive when I'm practicing, following his teaching. That is one of the ways, you know, karma or activity or vow continues.


But as I said, I don't know if the person is really reborn and I can live as the same person and continue the same work. I wish, after I became 50, I wish I have the next lifetime and continue to the same work, same practice, and same work. Until 50, I don't care about the next life. But after 50, you know, the end is getting closer, you know, this lifetime. Then I felt, I started to feel, you know, this one lifetime is too short to study Dharma. Even when I started to practice and study Dogen, the first 20 years, I didn't really understand what Dogen was talking about. Because I trusted my teacher's teaching,


That's why I continued to practice. But for the first 20 years, Dogen Raiten Shobo Genro didn't make sense at all to me. But somehow I'm interested in it, so I sit with what he wrote, and I continue to study. But after 20 years, that means around when I was 40 years old, slowly, gradually makes sense. And then I became 50, you know, I'm already more than, you know, more than two-thirds or three-fourths of my life is over. And now, you know, since it's making sense, I tried to share with other people. Still, already I felt I'm too old. So I really want to be born again as a Buddhist monk, as a Dogen student, and continue this work.


This is my wish. But I don't know if it's possible or not. And even if it's not possible, then what I'm doing now, If that is meaningful for other people, then some people continue my work as I'm trying to continue my teacher's work. Or many Buddhist masters continue Buddha's work. So that is, in a sense, karma continues. Please. Along these same lines, how about the aggregation of birth? Is there a theory about that? How do these aggregates come together in this particular way? I'm sorry, but I don't know. It's a very interesting question. Does someone know?


You need to ask some Buddhist scholar. There must be some theory, but I'm sorry, but I don't know. So, you know, there's no such thing as the I within those five skandhas. But we are, you know, in a sense, interacting between these two, our sense organs and object and consciousness, you know, evolve or grow. That is how we are. So there is no such thing called I or the self. But yet we have to accept this collection of all different elements as me. So these are two different kind of concepts of the self. One is permanent and only one and operator of this body and mind.


But another is just a collection of five skandhas, that is me. I'm sorry, but if I talk about that point, it takes more than one hour. But probably English word perception is not the right translation of the Sanskrit word, or Chinese or Japanese word. The Chinese and Japanese for perception is saw. And when Uchiyama Roshi said, opening the hand of thought, this thought is this saw. So, in the third skandhas, thinking


is already there. But I think in English, as an English word, perception means something there, before we think. So that is a difference between Chinese or Japanese. I'm not 100% sure about the Indian Sanskrit word, samjhya. But perception might not be a good translation. Perception includes this thinking. And perception, thinking is already there. And it creates some image. When we receive some stimulation from the object within our mind, we create some image. About those images, we make all different kind of a judgment, a concept, that is called formation.


And after that, we fix, you know, we make definition, and we determine this is good or bad, or desirable or not desirable. That is consciousness. But I cannot explain more in detail now. So, this self, Buddha and Dogen Zenji talk about, and this self is different self, so we need to be careful not to confuse these two. So, therefore, the colors of our mind, colors of our mind is things happening in our mind, influenced by flowers or moons, or other objects. Sometimes our mind is very joyful color.


Sometimes it's really painful, sad, lonely color. So it's changing. All those colors are changing. That is a kind of a co-operation of six sense organs and the object of sense organs. Those colors of our mind, caused by the flowers or the moon, also should not be grasped as being our self. We should not grasp as this I, or we should not substantialize this collection of our past experience as this I. substantialize or reify this I, but this is moving like a waterfall. The self is changing. But we think, so this is not, should not be this I, but we think this is me as a conventional conversation.


We think of Fat is not our self as our self, so this self is not fixed thing, but conventionally we accept this as the self, as me. And we cannot, we cannot avoid it. As far as we live, as a member of a human society, I have to, you know, have some kind, some identity. In my case, I am a Japanese Buddhist priest, so I have to behave as a Japanese Buddhist priest. That is my responsibility. Otherwise, we cannot be a member of the community. People don't trust me. So we cannot do anything about this. This is how we live. When we clarify that there is no color we dislike, and there is no color we should approach and long for, like and dislike, of course there is some sad color, or joyful color, or beautiful flowers, or lonely scenery, all different kinds of things happening.


But that became a part of me. That shaped who I am. So it's really not, you know, I like this or I hate that. That is a crucial point, whether this becomes a starting point of transmigration within samsara. One just accepts this as me. Often, as living beings in samsara, after, you know, this contact, have a sensation, and depending upon whether it's desirable or not, we chase after something or escape from something. That is the beginning of transmigration. And our life becomes suffering or sansara.


Please. Roshi, is there a contradiction between the first two sentences and the remainder of that paragraph? For example, what you just said about transmigration, that's describing the self. That's our self. that we think exists, but doesn't exist. But then he says we can't do anything about the fact that we think it exists. We cannot do anything about this. We cannot do anything about that, what we see, what is not the self, as our self. We can't do anything about that? Yeah, that is, you know, we have to accept this correction as the self and I think this is me. Yeah, but doesn't that contradict no color we dislike and nothing we approach or long for?


Because the not dislike or not long for would not be the self. But we are only the self. I think I don't understand the point of your question. What is the contradiction? He says at first, we can't do anything about it. What it is that we can't do anything about? To avoid. There's no way to avoid this. way of life. This means we live with the relation with others as an object. We cannot come. And we create some kind of, you know, karma as my personality. There is, you know, I think the point is the same as Garuda only dragon.


You know, or another example is, you know, the story Dogen quote in Tenzo Kyokun. When a seppo was Tenzo, he was selecting rice from sand. and told them, the abbot asked, do you select rice out of sand, or do you select sand out of rice? Then, that means, is there any discrimination or not? Then, Sepo said, I throw all out. Then he actually did. Then Tozan asked, you know, then fat the monks eat. So this selection of rice is not really a discrimination.


I think that's the point. There is a discrimination actually, like and dislike. But that doesn't really mean rice is more valuable than sand. Sand can be more valuable than rice in another purpose. You know, when we build something, sand is more useful than rice. So it's a matter of how those things can be used. Or, you know, for this 5th calendar, so we cannot eat sand. but we can eat rice. So we have to make choice, but this choice is not like and dislike. This is about the dharma nature, nature of each beings. Is this the answer to your question? That's the answer, yes.


Good. So we cannot avoid actual selection. Between our likes and dislikes and the dharma nature, Okay, here we are. So, when we understand that point, then each and everything we do, like cleaning the rice in the kitchen, or other things in the garden, or somewhere else, can be all said, then the activities naturally in the way, when we do those things as a practice for the sake of Dharma, then they are the original face that is never hidden. It's always there. Okay, then I'd like to go to the next section.


Please. I just want to say something about this part of thinking about Discrimination? And I was remembering once there's a difference between the word discrimination and discernment. Discernment. Discernment. You need to make some choices which is different than discriminating. And I wonder if that works for you. I think it works. To see the difference and to like and dislike is different. It's not, you know, value judgment is not involved. So it can be wisdom. To make distinction between rice and sand can be a wisdom. It's not like and dislike, I think.


Well, next section. An ancient said, the entire earth is the dharma body of the self. However, we should not be obstructed by the dharma body. If we are obstructed by the dharma body, we are not able to turn our body even a little bit. There must be the way of getting the body out. What is the way of getting the body out for all of you? If you don't express this way of getting the body out, the life of the Dharma, life of the Dharma body, will be immediately lost, and we will sink into the ocean of suffering for a long time.


When we are asked like this, how can we respond to keep the Dharma body alive and not sink into the ocean of suffering? At this time, we should say, the entire great earth is the Dharma body of the self. If this is a true principle, the time when we say that the entire great earth is the Dharma body of the Self, cannot be said. Also, when we cannot say, we have to understand that we definitely cannot say. An ancient Buddha who had never said, once said as follows, In death there is the living, in life there is the dead, There are the dead who are always dead. There are the living who are always living.


This is not what is possible made by a person. The Dharma is like this. So now he starts to talk about the Dharma body of the self. This expression, the entire earth is the Dharma body of the self. It means, you know, we are existing within this network of interdependent origination. And this is the Dharma body of Buddha. So we are part of the Dharma body of Buddha. That is clear, I think, from the teaching of the Lotus Sutra.


But in Zen, Zen masters, it's kind of a turnaround. And because when we touch one knot, of this net, we touch the entire net, because everything is connected. If so, this entire net is the self. Does it make sense? Please. Yes, because there is no self. If there is some separation, then this person cannot be the entire universe, because we are really connected.


Then, not only this one person, but all beings are the entire universe. That is a Zen teaching. Zen masters twisted the teaching of the Lotus Sutra or Mahayana Buddhism. So, again, this is a kind of dangerous point. If we think this me is the entire universe, then that is a problem. But because there is no such thing called this self, this I, then therefore we are the universe. That is the meaning of this expression. This is the entire earth. It is the dharma body of the self. However, we should not be obstructed by the dharma body.


When we hear this kind of teaching, then we feel like I'm much bigger than who I am, bigger than these five skandhas. And if that is a concept, then we will be obstructed by that concept that I am the Dharma body, and the entire universe is me. That is really a fantasy. even delusion. But sometimes during our zazen we feel such a way. But don't think that is enlightenment. That is delusion or illusion. When we are in such a condition we are obstructed by the Dharma body and we can't move. We are hindered by that kind of image. That is what he said, if we are obstructed by the Dharma body, we are not able to turn our body.


We become... we are not free. Because, you know, everything is me. What shall I do? Or we may think, I can do whatever I want to do, because I am the universe. That can be really a poison. So we need to find that over strength. Please. Is it the thought or the belief of the thought? Pardon me? Is it the thought? Thought? The thought around the universe? Is it that thought or is it the belief in that thought? That's the problem. I think the problem is when we are deceived by whether that belief or thought or imagination or even the teaching, even Dogen's teaching or Zen teaching.


If we accept or understood or grasped as a concept of Dharma bodies as such a big thing, But that is not what this saying, the entire earth is the Dharma body of the self, means. It only means we are connected with everything. That's all. So this is really an important point. So, next he said, there must be the way of getting out the body, getting the body out. We start that idea of, you know, this entire universe is me, then that is a problem, so we need to be free from that. This getting the body out is a translation of shusshin.


Shutsu is to exit, get out, and sin is body. And this word is used in Fukanza Zengi. What is the expression? Shusshin no katsuro. Katsuro. And this is the opposition of nitto no henryo. This to is head, and nyu is enter. So when we first start to understand this, we put our head in there.


But this might be a problem. So we have to get our body out. And I think English translation is vital path of emancipation. That is one of the English translations. So we have to get out our entire body. That means when we enter the Dharma, the world of Dharma, that is okay. But if we stay there, that is a problem. So we get out even the Buddhahood. That is, fatishment means going beyond Buddha. Otherwise, we are fixed in there. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you said. Going beyond Buddha?


The idea of Buddha? What do you mean? We should not even stay within enlightenment. That means I think I am enlightened person. That is a problem. So if we stop there, Dogen said, the life of the Dharma, Dharma body, will be immediately lost. And we will sink into the ocean of suffering for a long time. we make our life suffering. That means if we think this individual person is entire universe, if we are caught up in such a delusion or fantasy, then that creates many problems.


Or if we think because of such condition, if I think because of this I am enlightened, then that creates many problems. It's a kind of poison. So we need to get out from... That means we don't... We can remember it, but we open our hand and just go to our day-to-day lives. And just, you know, cutting vegetables or cleaning the floor or just sit. So how can we get out our body from the Dharma body? The idea of this entire great earth is Dharma body. Then we are asked like this, how can we respond to keep the Dharma body alive and not sink into the ocean of suffering?


And his answer is, his recommended answer is, at this time we should say, the entire great earth is the dharma body of the self. He just repeated the same thing. But these two can be very different. Do you know the story about a fire boy seeking the fire. There was a director of the monastery who thought he was enlightened. He attained enlightenment by the certain Zen Master's words about the subtle self. And that Zen Master said, you know, the fire boy is seeking the fire. That means the self is seeking the self.


The self is seeking the self. The fire boy is like a boy living in the monastery and one of their duties is to take care of the lantern when it's getting dark. And those kids are called Fire Boy or Hei-Tei-Do-Ji. Hei and Tei both means fire. So they are, and this Hei-Tei-Do-Ji was originally the god of fire. So they are already fire. And yet this god of fire is seeking the fire. That means the self is seeking the self, even though we are already the self. When he heard this expression, this person thought, I get it. So I am enlightened.


So when he practiced with this Zen master, I think his name was Hogen. So Hogen Zenji asked this person, Gensoku, Why don't you ask me the question?" And Gensokyo said, Because I have no question. I have no problem. I'm enlightened. Probably the abbot sees some problem in that person's behavior. So he asked, you know, Why don't you ask me a question? And the person said, I have no question. No problem. And why did you say so? Then he explained the story that I attained enlightenment. Then I hear, I heard the expression, self is seeking the self. Then the abbot said, you are completely wrong.


You don't understand this saying at all. So the person got angry and left. That is a kind of evidence he didn't understand what this means. But the important point is after he left for a while, he walked, he came back. That is a kind of repentance. He found something wrong with him. So he returned to the Master Hōgen and made repentance and asked please teach me." Then Hågen said, give me the question again. So he asked Fappi the self of this student. Then Hågen said, a fire boy seeking the fire. Exactly the same thing. And at that time, this person, Gensoku, completely attained so-called enlightenment.


So Fappi the difference, These are kind of the same kind of example. First it said the entire great earth is the dharma body of the self and we caught up in that question or understanding. So how can we get out of that problem? The answer is the same. This is our life, so we are free. But we should not misunderstand this expression, dharma body. It does not mean this person's body becomes such a large, universal thing, but this only means I am connected with all beings. I am supported by all beings. So, I try to support other beings.


So, instead of we become a great person, but when we really understand this, we become humble. That is the difference, I think. That means, because we are supported by all beings, we try to support. gratitude to all beings, whatever we encounter. That is what in Uchiyama Roshi's expression, everything we encounter is our life. That doesn't mean everything encountered is my possession, that I can use to make me happy. But everything encountered is my life, so I try to take care of it. You know, the difference is really very tiny, but the attitude toward our life and the attitude toward other people and beings are completely different.


Whether we serve to all beings or we use all beings for me. It's our position. Please. So the answer is the entire earth is the dharma body of the self. If this is the true principle, if the entire great earth is the self, if this is the true principle, that time When we say that the entire great earth is the dharma body of the self, it cannot be said. That means, if we say the entire body is the dharma body as a kind of a statement, or my understanding, then we lost the reality that we are part of.


there, we cannot say anything. If we really see this reality, we cannot say anything. Because word makes distinction, or discrimination, or separation. When we say this entire great earth, it's something outside of ourselves. And the dharma body of the self, that is already a concept. So when we are really awake to that reality and try to express it, the only thing we can do is shut our mouth and sit. So it really cannot be said Also, when we cannot say, we have to understand that we definitely cannot say. That means, without any question, we definitely say nothing.


And that is what we do in the Zen-do. We really say nothing. Just sit. That is the most direct expression of this principle that the entire great earth is the dharma body of the self. When I think about it, we are separate. And when we discuss about it, we are far away. But, and yet, Many of the masters say so many things, including Dogen. And he picked up one of the examples, but he said, though the ancient Buddha, who had never said, once said. This is a really interesting expression. So, when we try to read this, we have to be really free from our


logical way of thinking. It's really nonsense. Unless we understand what he's talking about. Please. I feel there is a danger to take literally what you just said, that's it. Because if everyone is talking about the life of the 7 billion of us, and that's it, it's controlling one generation. So life is very rich. And that's it, it's not. That's it. I think therefore, just sitting is important. But we need to discuss what just sitting means. That is what we are doing. But this is not just sitting. So we can enjoy this kind of, how can I say, a kind of joke. Then we grasp what is this just sitting, seriously, and argue. That is really off the mark.


But when we understand what we are doing now, it's a kind of joking and enjoying and accepting, not by thinking, but as our life. And when we sit, just sit. When we cook, just cook. When we study, just study. When we think, just think. Focus on each thing in each moment. the point that we can be free from this idea of dharma body. But this, the Master said without saying, or didn't say, but used just these words, That word is, in death there is the living, in life there is the dead.


There are the dead who are always dead. There are the living who are always living. This is not what is forcibly made by a person. The Dharma is like this. So, Dogen Zenji thinks this saying has some truth. And we need to understand what this means. And, according to the commentary, this ancient Buddha, who didn't say anything, his name is interesting. Let's see. His name is Koryu Shishin.


Another ko is huang in Chinese pronunciation. And ryu is long, a yellow dragon. And shi is dead or death. And shin is mind or heart. And he has another name that is shishin goshin. This Koryu is the name of the temple he was about. Go is realization and Shin is new, fresh. Anyway, this person lived from 1043 to 1114. Three.


Four. Forty-three. He's a Rinzai Zen master. And what he said is, actually, what he said is half of Dogen's road. So the second half is probably Dogen's creation. Shi. Chu. u, katsu, ku, soku, ze, shiki, and katsu, chu, u, shi, shiki, soku, ze, This, within, there is life.


And life, same sound as shi, chu, u, katsu. And katsu, chu, u, shi. within life there is death. So, shi and death, and katu is life. And this part is ku, soku, zei, shiki. Emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. So, he's not talking about real, actual life and death, but he's talking about Shiki and ku. Emptiness, loop and emptiness. That means the same as Wu and Mu. There is and there is not.


That is, how can I say, negative expression and positive expression of Dharma. You know, Buddha said there are eye, ears, nose, tongue, body. But in the Heart Sutra it says, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body. This negative expression is called Shi in here. And Kat is all those things are there. Eye, eyes are here. Nose, tongue, body is here. That means all beings are here as a collection of different elements. That is there, and yet that is not there. Dharma has always two sides. That is what is in the Heart Sutra, it says, shikisokuzeku, form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.


So he only said two there is, within death there is life, and within life there is death. But Dogen, I think this is Dogen, Dogen added, there is, so third is, within death there is death. And fourth is, within life there is life. And these are the same as what Dogen said in the Makahani Haramitsu, Shogogen's Makahani Haramitsu. Probably, I said before, that is shiki, no, ku, soku, ku, shiki, ze, shiki.


Form is, I mean, emptiness is emptiness. And form is form. I think I already talked about this expression of Dogen in Makahari Haramitsu. You know, these two, shi and katsu, so means, is a kind of another expression of ultimate truth and conventional truth. As an ultimate truth, everything is empty. Nothing is there as a fixed thing. But as a conventional relative truth, everything is there. And these first two are mentioning the relation between these ultimate truth and relative truth, same as Li and Ji in Zen literature.


Ji, that is Li in English. Li is principle and Li is the matter or concrete reality, truth. So, life within this means relative things, each and everything, like this is a marker, and this is a pair of glass, and this is a sheet of paper. These are there, but they are not there. With emptiness, there are all those things. But there are all those things, but they are empty. And emptiness is empty. And form is form. These three and four is Dogen's addition, I think.


And these two, referred to in other Zen expressions as Ego. What is Ego in English? Interaction. Interact and not interact in Sandokai. Ego means they can turn around each other. So, emptiness and form is there and is not there, they can interact. And that is the first and second. And third and fourth is called full ego. Not interact. Means emptiness is emptiness, period. Form is form, period. Form and emptiness never interact.


So there are four ways of expressing this reality of form is emptiness and emptiness is form or ultimate truth and relative truth. Those are the expressions, I think, from Nagarjuna. about the emptiness or ultimate truth and conventional truth. Yes. Yeah, there is a dead, always dead, and living, always living. Yes. I don't think it's the same. I don't think so. So, you know, this is about how we are. It's not about some kind of Buddhist theory, but this is how we are living as a part of this interconnectedness, as a part of this network.


If we think this entire net is me, That is, this saying, the entire great earth is the dharma body of the self. But if you think there is such a thing, really, as me, as this universe, but, you know, even Uchiyama Roshi's expression, he used universal self. What is this universal self? That's kind of a strange thing. or an individual self, or a karmic self, or a conditioned self, and a universal self, or in Suzuki Roshi's Zen Mind, Beginning Mind, small self and big self. What is this? I think he used the word big self and small self and big self, didn't he?


OK, anyway, if we think this small self and this is big self, then if we understand this, take this as literal, then it is the same as Atman and Brahman in the Hindu teaching. So we should negate this. There is no such thing as called self. and there is no such thing called the universal self. Actually, the problem, the problem, I think, is this circle. There is no such circle. This is not my mistake, but I intentionally made the circle to show this is like a net, but actually there is no such circle. This is really infinite.


There's no sacrament boundary. There's no such boundary. And there's no such person called me. So when we grasp this as individual and think I am the universe, then that is terrible illusion. So I think this is a good time to introduce one poem, actually three poems. And I introduced this poem, I think, ten years ago when I gave a talk here. This is a poem about Mount Lu by Su Shi. The Sushi's poem about Mount Rue is as follows. Regarding from one side an entire range, from another a single peak, far, near, high, low, all its parts, different from the others.


If the true face of Mount Rue cannot be known, It is because the one looking at it is standing in its midst. So in this poem, Mount Rue is this entire network. And the person is walking within the mountain. So depending upon where he is, the shape of mountain is different. From one point, the mountain mountain looks like an entire range, means part of the range of mountains. So actually there's no such one independent mountain. It's a part of the range. But from another point, it looks like a single peak. So this is independent peak, independent mountain. So depending upon how we, where


From here we see the mountain looks independent, or part of larger things. Which is true face, or mantru. So far, near, high, low, all its parts are different. That is the true face of mantru. Its true face is the Zen expression. That is true reality. this mountain, different from others, if the true face of Mount Rue cannot be known, it is because the one looking at it is standing in its middest. Because we are within the mountain, we cannot see the entirety of the mountain as an object. Because when we are inside, we have to take a position.


And when I'm standing this way, I can see the rest of the room, but I cannot see behind me. My existence itself their entirety. So that is what we are conditioned being means. We are conditioned. Depending upon where we are within this network, this network looks very different. Whether we are in the United States, or Japan, or China, or Africa, or Europe, you know, this world looks very different. And also depending upon each person's condition. This world looks like a very beautiful and enjoyable place for some people, but for some people this world is really a place of suffering.


And there are many different views. And we cannot tell which is the true face of this world. whether this is a place like a paradise, a place like a hell, or somewhere between these. It's really different. And how we can know what is the true face of this world, of this mountain. And even though Tsu Chi said, I cannot see the true face of Mount Lu, This is not, this doesn't mean there is some way he could see the true face, but this poem is expression of his awakening, that we cannot see the true face of Mount Rue because we are conditioned.


Anyway, this is a poem by Tsu Shi. And two Zen masters composed poems following this poem of Mount Rube by Tsu-shi, and that is Wan-shi, or Hon-ji, and Dogen. Dogen quotes Wan-shi's poem. Wan-shi is a very important Chinese Soto Zen master, whose collection of 100 koans became Shouyou-roku, or Book of Serenity. And Dogen quotes, not quotes Sushi, but he quotes Wanshi's poem, following Sushi's poem. And Dogen also made his own poem about the same point. And Wanshi, Wanshi is a Japanese sign pronunciation on the H.I.


He is about 100 years before Dogen. Honshi's poem is as follows. With coming and going, a person in the mountains. So it's clear that Honshi is writing about a person in the mountains. Understands that The blue mountains are his body. The blue mountains are the body, and the body is the self. So, where can one place the senses and their object? Senses and their object, that is what I said, you know, when we, our sense organs encounter with objects, we create samsara. But if there is no such separation, then we can avoid making samsara.


And this is how we can avoid making samsara even though we have sense organs and object of sense organs. And the fact is same here, sense organs and object of sense organs are working together as one. With coming and going, a person in the mountains understands that the Blue Mountains are his body. The Blue Mountains are the body, and the body is the self. So, where can one place the sense organs and their objects? So we are all within the mountains, and this is my body, same as this is the dharma body of the self. So, therefore, no separation between sense organs and object.


When we really see the oneness of connectedness, then there is no such separation. This functions as one. Then there is no contact. Right? Then there's no way, no, it's not necessary to create samsara. That is what this poem and Zen teaching means. So for Wanshi or Honji, whether we see the true face of Mantru or not is not a matter, because it's not possible. But the important point is This mountain is our body. That means we are living together with the entire mountain and all beings in the mountains. So the Blue Mountains are the body and the body is the self. So this is my self.


And I think for Dogen this is the problem. So here can one place the senses and their object. And Fat Dogen wrote, following Tsu-shi and Wan-shi's poem, is as follows. A person in the mountains. So, same thing. A person in the mountains. And, you know, this expression, person in the mountains, san, chu, ni, It's kind of an important expression. Dogen used this expression, person in the mountain, in Shobo Genzo Sansuikyo, or Mountains and Water Sutra. And also, Raihai Tokuzui.


Raihai Tokuzui is making prostration and attaining Mara. Well, I don't have much time. And also Uji, Shogokento Uji, being time, he used this expression, person in the mountain, without any explanation. So we don't understand the meaning or significance of this expression, but when we read these poems, we understand what he is trying to say. That is the same as we are living as a network of interdependent origination. What is this? How can we express this reality without making it a concept? Then we are fixed within this dharma body of the self and we are not free.


How we can be free, freely walking within these mountains? Anyway, Dogen's poem. A person in the mountains should love the mountains. With going and coming, the mountains are his body. The mountains are the body, but The body is not the self. So, where can one find any senses or their object? Basically the same with what Wanshi said, but one point is different. That is, Wanshi said, this body is the self. Manten is the self. But Dogen said, the body is not the self. This, we call this, is a self.


That is a problem. That is a big self. And this is a small self. But, Fat Dogen said, there is no such self. That is what he meant, there is no such boundary. This is a kind of a, how can I say, liberation from the idea idea or concept of the entire great earth is the dharma body of the self. Well, I think I talked too much, or too long, so I continue from here tomorrow morning.