We should not be caught up in words and concepts. So how can we become free from words and concepts, or a logical way of thinking, is one of the most important points in Zen. It was very clear in the teaching of Umongkan. But Dogen's kind of, not idea, but attitude toward word is completely different from that kind of, you know, word cannot be truth or reality itself. Of course, word and concept are incomplete copy of reality, but like a map or atlas. And yet, a map or atlas is part of the reality. So it's really important we study how to use it. If we know, if we study how to use the map, map is really useful kind of a tool to see, to understand the reality of the Earth.

[01:14]

If we think the map itself is reality, or the shapes in the map is real thing, that's a mistake. Of course, that is true. But that doesn't mean we should throw all the maps away and stop using it. But we have to study how the map was produced and what distortion occurred. So if we can adjust that distortion, then we can see the reality through the map. So, what we need when we study Dharma is to understand how the language, when we try to describe something using words and concepts, what kind of distortion is made and how we can adjust it.

[02:24]

And if we know how to do it, then the word and concept is part of the reality. And all Buddhas and ancestors and Buddhist masters have tried to, even the Buddha Shakyamuni, tried to transmit, express, explain and transmit the reality through using words and letters in the form of sutras or commentaries on sutras or recorded sayings by the masters. So, Dogen considers these words in the sutra or in the Zen text is reality itself. And that is that Buddha nature manifests itself or expresses itself through words.

[03:31]

If the words are correct and if we can adjust the distortion that means if we know how to use words and language. So to say something is really important in Dōgen. So reading books or studying sutras and having discussions to study each other is really important in Dōgen. That is what Dōgen said in Dōtoku. Dōtoku is one of the chapters of Genzo. dō, toku. This dō is the same Chinese character as way or path.

[04:35]

But this also means to say or to speak. And toku is to get or attain or being capable to. So dōtoku means How can I say? When we have certain experiences or certain understanding, we have to create the expression using words until you can express that experience or insight that is not really experience. It's not really insight. So to express something using words is really important. Another word Dogen used in this show was do-shu. Same do and shu.

[05:37]

Shu means to get or take. So we try to offer the expression that we experience and that we see. So this mood that buddha nature to create itself in this mood is if buddha nature's Buddha nature declared itself to be Mu. So this Mu is Buddha nature's word, not Joshi's word. But Buddha nature expressed itself through Joshi's mouth. And that word was Mu. And not only Buddha nature, but the dog declared itself to be.

[06:43]

So this Mu is Dog expresses itself as Moo. And that is, both must be utterance like Joshu's Moo. So Joshu's word expressing Moo is same as Buddha Nature's self-expression and Dog's self-expression. So this, according to Dōgen, this is really expression of reality itself. So it's not a matter we should not cling to, or we should avoid, or we should think opposite, like wolf. So thus, the more bystander called out, So anyone or all beings, not only Buddha nature and dog and Joshi, but all beings, when they try to express themselves, that should be Mu.

[08:00]

And such a Mu is a sun with stone-melting power. Stone-melting power. I don't know what this means, whether this is true or not, but he said, the sun has the power to melt a stone. This means, before Dogen taught someone the master's expression, a piece of rock in emptiness could be vanished. That's what emptiness means. Within emptiness, there's a piece of rock. So it's not really simply empty space. But emptiness is the way the rock, that means typescanners, are. So here, what Dogen is saying, my understanding is,

[09:13]

Even that rock in that emptiness is melting away. That means merely emptiness itself. Nothing else. So this is same as emptiness is emptiness period. Then the monk said, All sentient beings, everyone, have the Buddha nature. Why doesn't the dog? The dog said, what this essentially says is, Were there no sentient beings, there would be no Buddha nature.

[10:14]

There would be no dog either. Essentially it means what? I think he can interpret these conversations in Chinese in a very unique way because he was not a Chinese. And Chinese language is not his own language. When you study a foreign language, you have to figure out each and every word. think what this is. And after that, we try to understand one sentence. So first, we need to think each and every word, instead of interpret one sentence.

[11:16]

I think that's why he could interpret it in this way, I think. But Joshu, monk's expression to Joshu is, Living beings, kai-u, kai-u, all have kai-u busho, kusu wa doku, ii jinmo, So, all living beings are all 無, or have buddhahood.

[12:20]

The dog, for that reason, finds 無. And Dogel's interpretation is Even though the monk said all living beings are... he separated this U and this SHO and he read this as BEING. So, if all living beings are all BEING and that is Buddha Nature. DOG, FOR, FAT, FIRE, MOON And Dogen is saying is, you know, all living beings are moved. That is what Joshu said. All living beings are moved, then Buddha nature should also move.

[13:26]

And Kus is also moved. And what does this mean? That means, what is this wu? You know, this all-being, kind wu, is one supreme thing. All others are wu. But what is this wu? That, according to Dogen, that is a question of the monk. What is this wu? What is really there, alive, moving, arriving, eating, doing things? What is this wu? If living beings, buddha nature and dog are all wu, what is this wu? So dog

[14:30]

Buddha nature, what need have they to be called the moon? Then Joshu said, it is because the dog exists in karmic consciousness. I'm not sure about this translation. The original word is Ita. Ita-u. Go-shiki-zai. Ta is, in this case, dog. Ta is a third person. It or he or she. And, as a common way of reading, ウ is have, and ゴシキ is karmic consciousness, and ザイ is to be.

[15:43]

So this means, and イ is because. Because the dog, た, or he, or it, have karmic consciousness. Because this zai is also being, that means karmic consciousness is still there. And Buddha and dog have karmic consciousness. That's why... let's see... In the common way of reading, that's why dog has no good nature. But Dogen's way of reading this sentence is, Yi is because, but another meaning of this Chinese character is for the sake of.

[16:49]

for the senko, ta, can mean other. And so he leaves at one word, i, ta, nu, the being for the senko of others. And the being for the senko of others means bodhisattva. To read, you know, the very basic definition of what bodhisattva is. is ordinary living beings are living, being moved or led by karmic consciousness, making karma. Being moved by karmic consciousness, therefore we create karma and we create suffering. But this is a definition of ordinary being, living beings.

[17:56]

But one of the definitions of Bodhisattva is... so this is the way of life of ordinary beings is called Gosho, God and Sho, life based on karma or karmic consciousness. So, the expression gosho no don to ordinary beings who lived based on karma. That is ordinary living beings. That is transmigrating with six realms of samsara. But the definition of a bodhisattva is bodhisattva is a person who is living with vow. Vow? The expression is Gansho. [...]

[18:57]

Gansho. [...] G sentient beings are numberless. We vow to free them or save them. That is first vow. And if sentient beings or living beings are numberless, there is no time we can save them all. To save them means save them all. So this vow means we don't become Buddha. or we don't enter nirvana until all other beings are in nirvana. That means we vow to be the last person to enter nirvana.

[20:00]

We, you know, try to ask other people to go first. And if all living beings have this vow, it's kind of a silly thing. No one is there. Now, everyone said, please go ahead. I have a question. I was wondering, you know, if truly that compassion is coming out of our heart spontaneously, maybe what does it mean to be the last person entering the Nirvana? Being the last or first, does it make any difference? The same thing you mentioned, to be at this first step of the mountain or being on top of the mountain, does it make any difference if you're in the practice? Anyhow, my question was, does it make any difference to be a Bodhisattva to be the last person to enter or the first person to enter? So, this is another idea of, you know, how we, how can I say, create the Buddha Land in this shore, not to the other shore.

[21:10]

So no one go to the other shore. All people stay here. That's what it means, first step and last step is the same place. And that is compassion. Does it make sense? Anyway. So, Bodhisattvas vow to stay in samsara, to work with all beings, to help all beings, and, you know, to go ahead. And if all beings live in the same attitude, then we don't need to go there. Now, if all people live with that attitude, that is Nirvana. No one is self-centered, trying to help others, serve others. So,

[22:11]

You know, bodhisattva is, how can I say, transmigrated again, not again, same as ordinary living beings who have karmic consciousness. Or we can say, bodhisattva is a person who has karmic consciousness, therefore we don't stop transmigrating, but the purpose The motivation is different. Not because we are ignorant and we crave things, but because we live being led by a bird, we cannot stop transmigrating. And that is what this dog means. or dog's karmic nature and buddha nature means. As for bodhisattva, we have still karmic consciousness.

[23:16]

And yet, because this dog is a bodhisattva, this dog cannot give up this karmic consciousness in order to stay in this world, to work with others. That is what nitta means. It's a very unique way of reading this sentence. No one can read it in such a way. So, in time with bodhisattva, the being for the sake of others is the being of karmic consciousness. And that is Buddha. That is dog. So dog has karmic consciousness in order to continue to practice as a bodhisattva. If dog give up karmic consciousness, the dog has to give up the vow. So we keep karmic consciousness in order to continue bodhisattva practice.

[24:22]

So both are there. We live with karmic nature in order to work and practice as a bodhisattva. So, the meaning of this word is... Please. Sorry. You said Gansho? What's Gao? Pardon? You said Gansho? Gansho, yes. Can you translate that? Ga is Ga. Sho is Dai. Okay. And, you know, the name of... MZMC. Temple name of Minnesota Meditation Center is Gansho-ji. That's what Katani Roshi meant, which is being led by vow, and that means Bodhisattva. So, the meaning of this word is that existence for the sake of others is Ita-u, is karmic consciousness, is

[25:33]

meaning of karmic consciousness. This is his way of reading this sentence. Although his existence in karmic consciousness is existence for the sake of others, it is dogma. So this way of life is moo. It's not because he cling to the karmic consciousness. as a self or ego. But to continue to practice as a bodhisattva, he, the dog, does not give up karmic consciousness. So, it's not... So, that moon means empty. It's clinging, but it's not clinging. There's no self-nature there. And that's how the dog, Moo, and Buddha-nature, Moo, means. So it's really different from, you know, common understanding of the Koan story.

[26:44]

So karmic consciousness never understands the dog. Karmic consciousness never understands the dog. Understand means EI in original. And this EI also means to encounter, to meet. So, consciousness never understands, never meets with DO, because these are one thing. Shohak cannot meet Shohak. Buddha cannot meet Buddha. The dog cannot meet the dog. And buddhanature cannot meet buddhanature. So there is no subject-object separation. So how could the dog encounter the buddhanature?

[27:48]

Because buddhanature and dog are one thing. And karmic consciousness and life as a bodhisattva is one thing. A karmic consciousness and being or life as a bodhisattva for the sake of others is one thing. We cannot separate into two. And this is a good point, that is a bad point. So, the idea, you know, the common idea about Buddha nature, Buddha nature is something precious like gold within that. That is, that Dogen tried to negate that idea. You know, our life has kind of a combination of two parts. One is precious, another is... dark or fresh.

[28:49]

So, if we want to be enlightened, we cut off this dark part, then we become black. That kind of very simple calculation. A plus B equals C. So, if we take B from C, it becomes A. Very simple calculation, but according to Dogen, our life is not such a simple thing. We have both, and we cannot separate into two. These are one thing. So whether we speak of existence in karmic consciousness, existence for the sake of others, whether we are and we are both. Or of dogma or buddha nature, they are always karmic consciousness. So our practice is not like a karmic consciousness like a cancer, cause of problems.

[29:59]

So if we have surgery and take karmic consciousness out, only the Bodhisattva path left, but such a, you know, sadhya is not possible, because this is one thing. So from one side, this is entirely karmic consciousness, and from another thing, including karmic consciousness, this is entirely Buddha nature. What Dogen said in the very beginning, the entire being is buddha-nature. It's not a part of it. A monk... This is the end of the first section, and now he'll start the second question. A monk asked Joshi,

[31:01]

Does that dog have the buddha nature or not? Let me read until the end of this section. Among us Joshi, does that dog have the Buddha nature or not? This question signifies that the monk has skillfully gotten hold of Joshi. We thus see that making appearances and posing questions about the Buddha nature are ordinary rice-eating, tea-drinking, occurrences in the lives of Buddhas and Patriarchs. Joshua said it has or who. The manner of this has or who is not the has or who employed by

[32:08]

of the doctrinal schools. It is not the heart or... I don't think this is heart. This is being. Being. Positive by the Sarvāstivādin scholars. You must go beyond them and learn the Buddha being. Buddha being is Joshu's being. Joshu's being is the dog's being. The dog's being is buddha-nature being. These beings are all U. The monk said, if it already has the buddha-nature, what's the use of it pushing into such a bag of skin? This monk's utterance asks whether Joshu's being is present beings, past beings, or established beings, and we should have to reply that the original being.

[33:20]

In Dzogchen's utterance appears to refer to one being among various other beings. But, in fact, it is the original being, shining alone, Should original being be something that pushes into? Should it be something that does not push into? The act of pushing into this bag of skin is a cause of erroneous striving, but it is not therefore in vain. Joshu said, it's because it does it knowingly. It is deliberately transgressed. As mundane atoms, these words have long circulated in the world, but now it is Joshu's atoms.

[34:22]

He is saying that in transgressions on purpose, in full knowledge of what it does, there are probably few people who would not have doubts about this. The words pushing into are difficult to understand in this context. But in fact, they are not really needed here. Not only that, if you want to know the undying man in his heritage, hermitage, you must not leave your own bag of skin. The undying one, whoever he may be, is never at any time separated from his bag of skin. To transgress knowingly is not necessarily pushing into such a bag of skin.

[35:25]

Pushing into such a bag of skin is not necessarily knowingly and deliberately transgressing. It has to be deliberately transgressing because it is knowing. You should be aware that this deliberately transgressing may, as such, contain concealed within it daily activities that constitute the emancipated body of suchness. This is what is meant by pushing into. At the very time, the very activity constituting the emancipated body of suchness is concealed within it. It is concealed from you and from others as well. But, although that is indeed true,

[36:27]

do not say you are not yet free of ignorance. You, leader of donkeys, you horse followers." And that is not all. The eminent priest Yan Chu said, you may learn all there is to know about Tathagata Dharma, but in doing so, you completely falsify the bearing of your mind. Hence, even if your partial halfway study of the Buddha's dharma has long been in error, for days or even months on end, it still cannot be anything but the dog pushing into such a bag of skin. It is a case of knowingly transgressing, but that itself is no other than being Buddha-being.

[37:34]

Do you understand? I don't think so. But I need to check. Yeah, that is a problem. So this is the second half of this conversation. A monk asked Joshi, does that dog have the buddha nature or not? This is a very familiar question. But Dogen said, This question signifies that the monk has skillfully gotten hold of Joshi, gotten hold of it to grasp, catch, same as Isan Reyu said about the story between Obaku and Nanga, Obaku and Nansen, and Obaku caught the tiger.

[38:42]

So, here, Dogen said, this monk who made this question called on Joshu. So, again, this monk wins and Joshu loses. It's completely opposite understanding. We thus see that making the utterance and posing questions, so questions and answers about Vajraneshwara is, he said, ordinary rice-eating, feed-eating, that is we do every day. We eat, you know, rice, not in this country, but in Japan, three times a day.

[39:50]

and we drink a lot of tea. So, this means Buddha nature is something we should really study and practice and understand and express within our day-to-day lives. It's not a philosophical topic for only Zen masters or Buddhist philosophers. We have to do it in our daily lives as our ordinary meal and tea. So nothing special. Anyway, Joshu said Uru this time. And the manner of this, this note has, I think this is Uru, being. The manner of this being, or wu, is not the wu, or being, employed by an exegete of the doctrinal schools.

[40:55]

It is not the wu posited by the Holocaust-involving scholars. This means this wu, used by the zoshu, Chinese character wu is one of the translations of Sanskrit word bhāva, meaning being or existence. And in Buddhist Aghidharma, the Aghidharma masters analyze this being, in the case of Dharma, Agra Dharmakosha, into 75 beings, or dharmas. And this particular school is called Sarvāstivādan. Sarvāstivādan literally means people who insist that being is really existing.

[42:03]

in past, present, and future, in three times. So basically, being is not empty. It has fixed nature. And Thablongen said, Joshu's wu, or being here, is not that kind of wu. but Dogen, not Dogen, but Joshu discussed is Buddha being, Butsu-I. We must go beyond them and learn the Buddha being, Butsu-I. Buddha being. And he said, Buddha being, Buddha being, is Joshu's being. And Joshu's being is Dogu's being, or U, Dogu's U. So, in this part, Dorin talks about U, not Mu.

[43:18]

So, Buddha as U, or U aspect of Buddha. There, Buddha has function. So, it's not... Buddha is not a fixed entity. Buddha is impermanent, same as Buddha nature. So, Joshu-U is Buddha-U, impermanent and without fixed self-nature. And Joshu-U is Dogu-U. And Dogu-U is Buddha nature's U. So these are all uru, same uru. That is uru actually, you know, working, functioning and being. You know, such as, you know, this being is not a fixed entity, but often there's examples such as a waterfall is used.

[44:30]

This being is like a waterfall. There's no, for example, Niagara Falls. There's no such thing as a waterfall. It's just a, that is just a, how can I say, a collection of that certain shape of the land and a flow of water. So Niagara Falls is just a name of this happening. It's not a fixed entity or existence. it's always changing. So we cannot say, you know, there is Niagara Falls as a fixed entity. But as a concept, Niagara Falls is always Niagara Falls forever. It doesn't change. And the real thing is always changing. The water is different. Each moment the water that makes the form different.

[45:32]

And the shape of the land is also little by little changing. So there is no fixed entity called Niagara Falls. So it's not there. And yet, the actual Niagara Falls and the picture of the Niagara Falls are different. This is really Niagara Falls in my imagination and actual one at Japan. It's really there. And the photo or picture or my imagination is not really there. So it's not really fiction. It's there. It's there. Really there. And it's moving and changing and living and practicing and yet there's no such fixed entity called Niagara Falls. And this wu, or butsu wu, joshu wu, buddha's wu, or dogu's wu, are the same wu.

[46:35]

It's there and it's always changing. It's actually living and practicing. And in order to do so, This Buddha-U or Joshi-U or Dogus-U need to form and have karmic consciousness. In order to live with these five skandhas, we so have to need these five skandhas and this karmic consciousness. And that is what he is saying in English. The monk said, If it already has the buddha nature, what is the use of it pushing into such a bag of skin? So somehow buddha nature that might be formless pushed into that bag of skin and become a dog.

[47:43]

So why buddha nature needs to get into that skin bag? But if I avoid sattva, it means to live as a karmic person who causes shokaku. This is also a problem. The monk's question is, I'm going to do it on the count of four. Qi, Wu, Yi, Ji, Ma, Qiaku, Tou, Niu, So the translation is already there.

[49:02]

If it already has the buddha nature, if the dog already has buddha nature, again, for five reasons, the buddha nature or the dog To is to push, and nu is enter, so push into. That is the meaning of pushing into. So five buddha-nature needs to be pushed into the skin bark of the dog. If it's buddha-nature, it has no form. It's not limited. and it has nothing to do with south or north. It's not an individual thing. Why Buddha nature needs such a skin bug as a dog in this case? And again, Dogen's way of reading this sentence is different.

[50:12]

He said, This monk's utterance asks whether Joshu's being, Joshu's U, is present being, past being, or established being. This present being, past being, or established being comes from this word Ki-U, already being. Already being is is the word established being. So he read this, if the dog already has buddhanature, he said, the buddhanature is ki-u, already there, already being, or established being. And he asked, well, is this established being, is present being or past being?

[51:17]

Established means it's already there before this present moment. So it has some process. So it's not simply present being up on this moment. And yet it's not a past because it's present. So Hapin, this established hi'u means That is his question. And we would... This is the same question as whether living beings have buddhanature from the very beginning or buddhanature appears only when we practice. In fact, this is what he means. Buddha nature is not something we have from the very beginning.

[52:26]

And Buddha nature is neither also not something we can get when we practice in a certain way, at a certain time. But the skill remains. It's there. But is it really there from the beginning or only this moment? And we would have to reply that the original being is also the translation of Ki-U. In Joshu's utterance, the slogan is Joshu's saying. Not that the dog has a good nature. and yet it's not, it stands from the very beginning and it's not something we can gain at certain time from practice some particular thing.

[53:43]

And he, this translator claims this, this cue here as original being. I'm not sure if this translation is good or not. Original being in Joshu's atlas appears to refer to one being among various other beings, but in fact it is original being shining alone. Shining alone means this being is only one thing. in the expression he used in the beginning of his buddha nature is entire being. Entire being is shining alone. That means nothing else.

[54:48]

So we cannot say it exists here or it was there or it will be in the future. But it is always already there. And this is shining alone means nothing else. This is only this moment, this moment, this moment. As Togen said in Uji, only this moment. And next moment, again this is only moment. And again next moment, that is only moment. So this is the only thing which is shining. Should originally being, this Q, being, original being, be something that pushes into for this original being, or already being, or established being, that is buddha nature.

[55:59]

being something that pushes into? This is your question. Or should it be something that does not push into, into this skin bag of a dog? And somehow, you know, he or original being of Buddha nature is Enter the skin bag. Maitreya Dogen said this enter is a problem. Because this original buddha nature and a skin bag is one thing. It's not a matter of this enter that. But this is one thing and this is our practice. Buddha nature practice within this skin bag. So, the act of pushing into, and this is pushing into, the act of pushing into means this is our practice.

[57:06]

Somehow, Buddha nature pushing into this short skin bag and do something. This is practice. The act of pushing into this bag of skin is a case of erroneous striving. So, whatever we do is erroneous, mistake. But it is not therefore in vain. This is really unique. So whatever we do is a mistake. And this is Dogen's, not only Dogen, but in one of the famous Zen, from one mistake to the next mistake. That is the process of our practice. So, we are mistake. And our practice is mistake. Keep making mistake.

[58:07]

If we know that whatever we do is mistake, then we don't need to claim to, you know, we did so much, or we did such a great thing. So we can be humble, be peaceful, and just keep going. The other day, you were saying that the body of a man is like a house for either the Buddha nature or social intelligence. So when I'm hearing you, the time that you're saying that Buddha nature and the bag of sin are one, so how would you compare that to the previous statement that a small house versus a big house? That is the idea of the so-called Seneca. a non-Buddhist teacher. Self is like an owner of a house. When the house is burned, the owner gets out and buys another house.

[59:12]

That is not the Buddhist idea. He had always said, we are, or Buddha said, is not like the owner of the house. So at the time of death, How would you express a corpse that doesn't breathe? That is, I think, one of the points discussed in the next section. One. Yeah, that's one. Cut into two. I hope I can finish tomorrow morning. If you want to move from here, you don't sit here. And let's hold the question for the end, then we can finish.

[60:13]

Okay. Just keep making mistakes. Thank you.

[60:50]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ