I vow to taste the truth of the Tathagata's words. This morning we didn't tape our session together. Partly we just forgot. And partly we were wondering whether we should tape it or not, considering this is such an unfamiliar subject to everyone. But then, of course, afterwards some people asked, why didn't we tape? In a way, the koan itself is a kind of tape. In other words, if you have a tape of often a lecture or a Buddhist teacher's talk that you like, I think you find that when you listen to it on different occasions and several times, different aspects of the meaning become clearer.

[01:29]

And your own associations with it, even if the associations have nothing to do with the lecture, your own association will be different each time. And a koan is much like that. It's told in such a way that it sticks in your memory. And you meet it over and over again.

[02:52]

It pops up. And, of course, you'll have different associations with it. And the real sense is you know you're working on a koan when your personal life begins to relate to it, even though it would seem that your personal life is not part of the story. And the different aspects of a koan can pop out of the story and have a meaning independent of the story. And this story for some reason and a whole series of stories that are precede and follow from this story were part of my practice from the very first weeks or months I started to practice.

[04:19]

And this poem of Dung Shan, this realization poem of Dung Shan, has stayed in my mind for all these years. Now, It's obvious to us that reality or whatever that is can't be fully described. It can't be depicted. So this koan is in effect asking you the question presenting you with the problem, asking you the question, what about your own reality that can't be depicted?

[05:48]

What about the parts of your life that you can't describe? The parts that arise in the images of dreams. The parts that you can't remember. And the unseen parts of your life that accompany your present. And the possible futures you have which are already drawing you into them. So this koan brings up, asks you to bring up in yourself all those parts of your life which you feel but can't understand.

[07:09]

And of course when I'm talking about feeling, let me say for the few of you who are newer, I don't mean a graspable feeling or emotions, I mean non-graspable feelings, a level of feeling which if you try to grasp, it immediately is lost. And I would like to say for those who are new, what I mean by feelings, I don't mean any tangible feelings like emotions, but simply these non-tangible feelings. So right here we could say practice is becoming sensitive enough to live within non-graspable feelings. Without attempting to grasp them. Really without attempting to understand them. And this is not so easy.

[08:28]

How do you accept something without trying to understand it or get hold of it? A common mistake a lot of people make is, what can I say, Some people have a need, which I would say you could call neurotic. A need to understand. Now, the difference between a neurotic need to understand and a normal, usual need to understand would be if you can allow understanding, if you can give space for understanding to happen, without rushing the process, to be able to find your own stance

[09:41]

in not understanding without having to make it into something you understand. For a Buddhist, this would be a healthy position. Particularly if you've started doing zazen, because zazen immediately, pretty soon, immerses you in situations which you only half understand. Now, a neurotic need to understand would be to force understanding on things. For example, to know very little about a situation but to say, oh, I understand that. Or to assume while you know one side, you also know the other side even though you know very little about it.

[10:55]

And a lot of people have this tendency. And when you have this tendency, often the people who have this tendency often want to emphasize understanding and a kind of heart connection into the situation. But they usually become very frustrated because they can't wait for understanding to happen. They cut off that very heart connection. Mm. Heart or heart? Heart. Yeah. So here we have half the koan already, which is how to be in a situation in which you don't have to understand.

[12:37]

In fact, to kind of cultivate or get used to always being in a situation of only partly understanding. And to cultivate this feeling and to get used to how one is in a situation without understanding. Now this not understanding is most possible and is functioning within you when you can also stay with without needing to grasp a non-graspable feeling or a non-graspable being.

[13:45]

And this you can become most easily familiar with probably by sitting in zazen and trying not to interfere with the zazen itself. Now, in this koan, there's a word for, you know, in the back of the book of Shoyuroku, there's a section, kind of glossary, and there's a section of notes on each case. And each case, not all of them, but many of them have little notes that go with it. And I believe there's a note for case 48. And there's a, at the latter part of the note for case 48, it's actually for case 49.

[15:11]

It's an error in the book that it's not marked case 49. It's an error in the book that it's not marked case 49. Anyway, it says there that the word that's used in Chinese for image is also the word for reality. So even if you don't know that, even if you don't know that the word for image and reality is, if you're reading it in Chinese, clearly the same. It's still, if you read the koan carefully, clearly implied in the way the image of yonyan is used in relationship to later to know the reality.

[16:29]

Both the image of jnana and reality, neither the image of jnana nor the reality can be depicted. Now this has some importance in the poem because it says, it is, I am not it. And it is now me. Und es ist jetzt ich selbst. But it could also be written, and it's sometimes translated, I am not him. Or he is not, how does it go? He is not.

[17:45]

I am he, he is not me. He is me, I am not. Oh, anyway, you know. So it can be he or she instead of it. So again, going back to the sense of the question of the unacknowledged or unseen parts of us. The parts that we can't explain or depict. Now, what this koan is bringing up is that although you can't describe parts of yourself or understand parts of yourself, how do you make an offering to those parts?

[18:51]

How do you acknowledge those parts? And this koan suggests you make some kind of offering to this unexplained part of your life. You can offer flowers or incense or chanting or bowing. And this koan clearly implies that offering to Jungian is making an offering to reality and reality that we can't fully understand.

[19:53]

And you can offer your body And your mind, your intention and your feelings and this sense of making an offering is something that we can explore. When you meet somebody, do you feel you're making an offering to them? Do you feel you're making an offering of yourself? And the paramitas, the bodhisattva practice of the paramitas is to make an offering of yourself.

[20:54]

You make generosity, first is generosity which really means to offer yourself. And to offer, create the opportunity, the patience for this offering. And to offer your practice, your state of mind. And if necessary, to offer food and physical help. But in a deeper sense, to offer your presence, your state of mind. But in a deeper sense, it is itself, its presence. And I describe in that piece in the tree planters at some length the importance of the idea of a metalogue.

[22:25]

So if you're going to try to create the metallurgic atmosphere that would increase your likelihood of understanding, you'd recognize that this nanchuan, making an offering to Matsu, and dungsan, making an offering to Yunyan, is that we are making an offering of ourselves. So you come to the seminar this morning or this afternoon or tomorrow morning or now with the feeling of offering yourself into this, what you don't quite understand, into this go on.

[23:49]

The attitude when we bow in service is you plunge into the bow, you disappear in the bow. In that sense you plunge into or disappear into studying this koan. And so we've set aside a few days here where you can kind of let your own story merge into the story of this koan. And although you don't know what this koan is, you have enough trust and you're secure enough in yourself that you can disappear a bit, offer yourself to this study.

[24:50]

And you can offer yourself to each person and to the group of us together trying to study this, what we don't understand. So here we have this practice of already that pops out of the koan, independent of the story of the koan, this practice of offering. Which is the basic bodhisattva practice of compassion. The practice of emptiness which requires the kind of love which is non-attachment. So now in this koan you feel that you're what's being offered on the altar.

[26:16]

You're the incense. You're the flowers and the food. And you feel that when you, you know, it's a wonderful freedom. You're a free person, not oppressed or a slave, as Dung Shan said. When you meet somebody, you can have a sense of, at least a taste of, as much as possible of freely offering yourself. It's a little like listening to the doves and letting the doves, these wild cooing doves, speak to you. And last Sesshin we had of course many birds and doves and the cuckoo.

[27:29]

And Coco isn't here yet. And But this sashina, I think we're going to have some loud and quiet purring and cooing of doves. And for me it's very powerful to hear them because all around the monasteries in Japan where I sat for many years, there's always doves cooing. So it immediately puts me into that timeless sphere of the thousand-year crane and pine.

[28:32]

But when you listen to the doves don't try to listen to them and translate into your language. Listen to the doves as if it was your father or mother speaking to you in dove language. Oh, you were hearing yourself at a strange moment when you started speaking dove. Or to your friend or lover or somebody even on the stranger in the street suddenly speaking dove language. So don't try to translate dove language. Just listen as a dove to dove language. I think you may understand something.

[29:57]

And a later part of this series of stories, which this koan is one part of, has the famous part, which I've quoted many times, do you hear the teaching of inanimate objects? He says, although you do not hear it, do not hinder that which hears it. So although you do not hear the language of doves, do not hinder that which hears the language of doves. Again, this is offering yourself to the doves. Now, Dung Shan looks into the river and sees his reflection.

[30:58]

And he says, you know, I am not he. I am not it. It is now me. He or she is now me. And I think again of Rumi's poem where where he knocks on a woman's door. And she says, who is it? And he says, it is I. And she says, go away. So he comes back again in a couple of weeks and knocks on the door. She says, who is it? And she says, go away. So he's quite desperate and finally comes back again in another couple of weeks.

[32:22]

She says, who is it? And he says, it is you. And she says, come in. So this is not the David Reisman outer-directed and inner-directed person. David Reisman's a famous sociologist. Inner-directed and outer-directed. He had some idea of Madison Avenue Man, the IBM executive, as being outer-directed. And he clearly thought that his point was that we've lost the sense of being inner-directed.

[33:39]

So this is not a sense in Dungsan as he sees his reflection and he sees himself in the outside or he's outer-directed in some way. Now, what David Reisman was pointing out is the outer directed person sees the outer person as the inner person. It's just the opposite with Dungsan. He's seeing the inner person as the outer person. And for a moment, crossing a river. And for a moment, his image is held in the water. it's both it or reality and his own image and it's held for a moment in the flowing stream and it's held for a moment as he's crossing a river as he's leaving his teacher

[35:01]

And in this sense, we're always crossing a river. And in each situation, you can actually feel in each situation that you're crossing a river. That you're in the many transitions of your life, which actually can be a kind of stability. When you don't try to hold things too tightly. And when you can offer yourself or disappear, your image appears in everything. And this can also be the image or the half of you that's unseen.

[36:17]

And when we bow to the altar or make an offering to the altar, what do we see there? We see a Buddha usually sitting in meditation posture. So in this story also the image of reality is the lineage, the teacher, the meditation posture. See, if you go slow enough, you can see that this, and begin to use your imagination and your The images of this koan, you can see that this altar is the image of the Buddha. And the image of the teacher or of the lineage which can appear within you. So when you do zazen, you're offering yourself on the altar of the unknown part of yourself.

[37:31]

We could say that zazen is offering yourself to the unknown part of yourself. So you can have that feeling when you do zazen tomorrow morning and this evening of offering yourself to the unknown part of yourself. In the kind of moving stream of zazen, you offer yourself to the unknown part of yourself. And as the first line of the koan says, if you don't offer, if you can't do this, you lose connection with yourself with a capital S.

[38:47]

So here we have this whole sense of, do you agree? I half agree, I half don't agree. In the very first lines of the koan, it says Longya offered half his body, showed half his body. He showed half his body, but also he offered is the half that can't be seen or depicted. So in each situation, again, where this koan is saying, it would be good if you learned how to offer the half of yourself which can't be seen. And then the koan asks, right after the statement about Longya, ultimately what state is this?

[40:01]

Ultimately what state is this? I mean, you know reality can't be depicted. You know the fullness of your life can't be explained or depicted. But that doesn't mean you should ignore the unexplained, unseen parts of your life. And how do you offer the unexplained unseen parts of your life to your friend, to yourself, into each situation. So that's the question or main point of this beginning part of the koan.

[41:02]

And as you can see, I've only spoken here this afternoon about the first few lines, really, of the beginning of the koan. We have this question of how to offer yourself, how to acknowledge yourself. How to acknowledge the unseen parts of our existence. Again, Nanchuan said, we're going to have a memorial service for Matsu tomorrow. And then Nanchuan asks, do you suppose Matsu will come? And young Dungsan asks, he will wait for a companion. He will wait for a companion. Are you willing to be a companion?

[42:37]

How do you become a companion of your unseen, unexplainable, big self? How do you become a companion of a teacher? How do you become a companion of your friend? I think you understand this much. Thank you. They are intention. Okay, so I would like to entertain comments. Would you make a distinction between inner reality and reflection of reality?

[43:52]

What do you mean? By reflection of reality, I mean the image of something, or the image of Buddha, or the old crane, how to climb thousands of years, In reality, what I perceive or what comes out of my own image. Yes, the reflection of reality, that's what I understand now, or feel now, the image that we have at the beginning, is a little bit higher.

[45:15]

where we find verses of the King of the Thousand Years. And with inner reality I mean what I have developed with my own, with the energy that has developed out of me during my life or during my going through the Bible or in my room here with you. Well, I believe that Niels Bohr said that physics is not about the real world. It is about what we can say about the real world. And something like that runs through this koan that This is about what we can say about things, but not about what things are. So what is our relationship to what we can say about things?

[46:38]

How does this sound to me? In other words, we're not relating to exactly a real world, we're relating to what we say about a real world. Then you have a question of what's real, et cetera. This koan is definitely a kind of contemplation about what's real. My job is not to give you any instruction. That wasn't actually the sentence that struck me the most. I didn't receive his teachers' instructions, and I tell you, the fact that he didn't explain everything to me. Four. Four, either way.

[47:43]

Yeah, I mean, I pondered that a lot, starting in 1961, studying with Slyutchev. At that time, Charles Lux, Chuck, as Philip calls him, Chuck Luck. Chuck what? Chuck in the nickname for Charles Lux. Anyway, Chuck Luck's books had come out in about, I don't know, late 50s, early 60s. And I think they were pretty much the first books to carry the anecdotal stories of the various Zen teachers. So I read these stories about the same time as I started studying with Sukhi Rishi.

[48:58]

So I wondered a lot. What is Sukhi Rishi explaining to me? What is he not explaining to me? And it changed my relationship to him. To have the feeling that he not only couldn't, but wouldn't explain everything to me. So it made me become very alert to him. Because if he wouldn't, as well as couldn't, and I want to emphasize that it's not just a matter of couldn't, it's also a matter of wouldn't. Even when you can, you don't. So what kind of relationship does this create?

[50:03]

That was a constant koan or presence for me. Yesterday when you spoke about the yogic experience, you said, leave the flow of your own self. At first, I would like to say, no, it couldn't be possible to leave their own self. Even the sentences in the Quran, for example, it can't be clicked, it can't be drawn. It's within the self. Maybe I noticed, can all of these anchors for not so.

[51:03]

It's exciting. What is that exciting? OK. Do you want to say it? As a result of the experience, he also said, forget the flow of your own self. And that's the point where I notice Then he said, that can't be. And I went to sit in front of him. And even this first sentence, I could say, that is within the self. Then I realize, that is actually a door to leave the self. I thought, how should I get up? Yeah, you're lucky if you feel some excitement. The ability to be perplexed or feel some excitement is really essential to practicing Kwanzaa.

[52:07]

That kind of excitement is often called great doubt in Korn work. And when they've done studies of creative people, One of the characteristics that seems most creative people have is they can't put questions aside. They're always involved with, what's the meaning of this, or how could this be like this, et cetera. They can't put that philosophical dimension that many people dispose of by college. .

[53:18]

And certainly, I mean, for Zen practice, a big part of Zen practice is obviously the question, what are we? Who are we? But at least equally important is, what kind of world is this? So on the one hand you live in it in its usual way, and on the other hand, particularly through your yogic experience, you begin to sense that naive realism is not exactly how it exists. And that's one of the reasons Zen doesn't provide all the answers. Of all the Buddhist schools, it's the least attempts to provide a systematic explanation of everything.

[54:38]

And that's the opposite understanding that most people give to Vimalakirti's silence. But we should come back to that point. at some point during these days. So please, someone. I'm intrigued by what Doshan knew at that time. I misunderstood what my late teacher kind of, does he know now? And what did he understand then? So it's kind of difficult. Yeah, this brings up the relationship between not knowing and not hyphen known.

[56:19]

Not knowing and not knowing as a state of mind. So you'd have not knowing hyphen as a word and not knowing as two words. Sorry to translate that. This is a very important theme that runs through these columns, the distinction and actual interrelationship between really not knowing and not knowing as a fertile state. And the point is, they're not necessarily different. And they're discussed here in the middle of page 207. If you say he absolutely doesn't know it is, here there's gain and loss.

[57:39]

If you say he absolutely doesn't know it is, if you say he absolutely doesn't know it is, Here there is gain and loss. There is completely not knowing, and that should be a hyphenated not knowing. So there is completely not knowing it is. There is knowing it is. then after all, not knowing with an item. And then there is not knowing it is turning into knowing it is.

[58:43]

And those are actually states of mind that you all are familiar with. Sometimes you know, sometimes you don't know. The question is how do you stay at that place where you don't know and don't move into understanding too rapidly. And also don't lose your energy because you think you don't know. So if you genuinely don't know, but yet there's an energy present in that genuinely not knowing, that's a very different state than saying, oh, I don't know. If you honestly don't know something, but still feel energy, then it's a completely different state than if you just don't know anything. But this is, let me say, that this is also a kind of dialogue with Taoism.

[59:49]

Taoism has a lot of things about not knowing is best and so forth. But here this koan is trying to present not knowing as a variety of fertile states of mind. some of the sentence, I found it interesting how we tried to define the sentence in a kind of unzoological way. What did it mean? What does it mean? I thought, how did Jünger know what he said? Why he said it? When he said it? And it reminded me of a picture I always had about a painter or an artist doing a painting. Because I know a lot of artists, and also artists who meditate before they start painting.

[61:11]

And they just meditate, and then they paint. They don't know what they paint. They don't know what they paint. And they can't explain it afterwards. And the continuation of this picture is that when this painting hangs in a gallery or a museum, the artist stands invisibly next to this painting and watches the spectators and the people who paint it. And he tried to define, to interpret this painting, and he just starts laughing. He doesn't know he's a stupid or funny. There's no meaning behind this painting. Why I did it in this way? And so it's the same. Probably Jungian didn't know why he said it. He just said it. Just this isn't. to interpret in a very immaculate way from the intellect and from the steep sense of the intellect.

[62:16]

And there are many pictures that I always have, when, for example, artists cannot explain their pictures. And such artists who previously meditate and then simply paint on the inside accordingly, they don't know why they do that. They can't explain it either. Some people, for example, in the gallery or in a museum, stand in front of the painting and then think a thousand thoughts about what it could mean. The artist is invisible next to the painting, he laughs and says, what these people say is all insignificant. I didn't even think about it. It just came so spontaneously. The expression of the painting, this expression of justice, that's how I see it. I think that basically that's true. At the same time, some artists, some of the greatest artists, have a lot of ideas about what they're doing, and they are able to drop it when they paint.

[63:22]

And I think part of this is in this koan of how do you, even if you know something, how do you drop it? I think Christina is right that this line, quoted from the Hoi An Sutra, that inner reality is complete. One should, I think she's right to take issue with that.

[64:28]

In the context of this koan, you could say inner reality is partial, also partial. But for some reason, which has to do with the koan, it's emphasizing in some sense an inner reality that is complete. So you have the two sides here. As Garel pointed out, in some ways this is about doing your practice alone. And Eric Eno spoke about that too. But this koan is also about not ever being alone. Now, what is... You know, let's look for a moment at the colon 48, if you can turn to it.

[65:55]

Now, this colon clearly precedes the one we're looking at. Vimalakirti asked Manjushri, what is a lay adept's method of entering non-duality? Manjushri supposedly said, according to my mind, In all things, no speech, no explanation, no direction, no representation.

[66:59]

And leaving behind all questions and answers, this is the way to enter non-duality. And you can actually practice with each of those things. Can you speak about something without a feeling of representation? Or without a feeling of direction in what you're saying? Or if you do have a feeling of, if when you speak there's a feeling of representation as I'm representing something with my words right now. Can I also let go of that? Take, as I say, the formatting out of what we do. Like I see you now formatted with some of you near and a foreground and background.

[68:11]

Or, but if I take away the formatting, I see you as a flat plane. I don't see you before and after. Or I see you all rather loosely floating in space. And that formatting that my eyes see, I don't think is biological. I think it's cultural. Necessary way of functioning. She disagrees. But if I can... But if I can see the other way, then that also has to be biological. And so if there's more than one choice, then it's cultural. I don't know if I succeeded it there, but anyway.

[69:20]

Then Manjushri asked Vimalakirti. Then Manjushri asked Vimalakirti. We have each spoken. Now you should say, good person, what is a bodhisattva's method, a lay adept's method of entry into non-duality? Vimalakirti was silent. Now, This is often understood that somehow Vimalakirti did what Manjushri was talking about. Manjushri talked about silence, but Vimalakirti practiced silence. That's true on one level.

[70:23]

And again, you've heard me tell a story, but it reminds me of Ron Eyre, my friend who died recently, asking in his BBC television series, Hasidic Rabbi, Who was talking a great deal. And Ron said to him finally, is there any silence in Judaism? And the scholar said, oh, yes, but we don't talk about it. So some people think, again, that Vimalakirti was doing what Manjushri was talking about.

[71:27]

And as I say, on a practical level, that's true. But it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Buddhism. Manjushri is equally silent when he's speaking. The Malakirti silence is not infinite, it's finitude. It's a way of speaking too. It's just another way of speaking. So this is a real powerful statement in Buddhism, if you understand it, against mystic silence. There's some kind of big silence out there or, you know, some mystic, egocentric reality of essences.

[72:32]

So if you think of it as a kind of truer, silence is somehow truer than speaking, then you've created basically a theological idea. As soon as you say something's realer than something else, you've got a God. As soon as you say that something else is more real than something, then you have become a god. Okay. I have a problem with, you said before that you may know something, but you choose willingly not to say it. That goes in that direction for me. That creates for me this mystical silence. It creates sort of a... I understand. No, no, no. I understand. You want to say that in German?

[73:34]

Yes. And Louise, if I teach in such a way that I say, here's a line, are any of you good enough to cross this line? In my opinion, I'm not a good teacher. That's a way of using power. I will tell you, I won't tell you, something like this. But there is the possibility that if I tell you, you won't understand. And if I don't tell you, you will understand.

[74:34]

So sometimes it's very clear to me that if I tell somebody something, my telling it makes them not understand. And there are some things you can tell, but you can't understand them unless you come to that understanding on your own. And I shouldn't take that away from you. Anyway, there's many such possibilities. So it's not, although I can see how you could feel that or consider it a possibility, it's not about withholding. So, Vimalakirti's silence, you could say, is mysterious. It's about the mystery, but it's not mysticism. It's just another way of speaking. Okay, now, we're supposed to stop shortly, but I'd like to say something if I could.

[76:01]

And this question of Vimalakirti's silence comes up again There is simply no hook on which one can hang silence or the Absolute. So whatever we do, whatever we say, that's enough. Okay, so that comes up again in the next colon, 49, in a double way. There's Dung Shan's sinking into thought. That sinking into thought is like Vimalakirti silence. And there's also just before that, in the same line, after a while, Jungian said, that after a while is also the Melcherti silence.

[77:18]

But in the after a while, Jungian said, Jungian is speaking when he says, just this is it. He's speaking in such a way that doesn't interrupt the silence of after a while. So he's not expressing the after a while. The after a while is one statement, and then he says something which doesn't interfere with the after a while. But Dungschan sank into thought and actually at that time nearly misunderstood his teaching. So at that point, his silence was not understanding. Yet when he looked in the stream, it was understanding. So, was it not understanding when he sank into thought?

[78:37]

It was part of a process. You could say. But it's more fundamental than that. And, you know... Ulrike and I saw a film the other night called The Silence of the Lambs. It's an extremely scary movie. Have any of you seen it? Yeah. And Anthony Hopkins, I think the guy is it, who might be one of the most brilliant actors. And Jodie Foster is also a very good actress. But Hopkins plays an extremely intuitive, brilliant person, psychologically brilliant.

[79:43]

Now, I've known one or two people, perhaps they're rather like him. But they're not monsters. But he's a monster. And why is he a monster? My opinion is this, because we cannot deal with talent and exceptional ability. And when we try in our society to deal with unusual human possibilities, where do we put them? In outer space. Or in the future. And science fiction is a kind of way our society plays with the possibilities of cities and unusual powers, but we can't deal with them in our own space, so we say, oh, that's in the future, the Terminator 15, or that...

[80:44]

or that in, you know, outer space. Easier the future outer space. And to me this relates to Bimalakirti's silence as if it's understood as a kind of mystic space. That there's a heaven out there somewhere. that it's in another place. It's not here because it must occupy some kind of space because it's not coincidence with this space. And we don't really have the kind of imagination that allows us to think that Buddha is right here. Or that heaven is right here. So, now I... To go back to... When I was with Diana... In Austria, I had this several-day conversation with two physicists.

[82:23]

And one of the things both of them said is that most physicists don't think about what quantum mechanics really means the world is like. Most physicists just do the work that physics allows them to do, but they don't think about what that means. They still have the view of naive realism. So, but one exception to that was Niels Bohr, who kept trying to see how this ordinary world must be, if quantum mechanics is so, And I'm not a physicist, but I believe he came up with the idea of complementarity.

[83:38]

That you have, as most people are aware of, that you have these two explanations of a particle. One is as a wave packet and one is as a particle. And you can't create a hybrid, you can't join them together and say it's both of these at the same time. It's sometimes one and sometimes the other, depending on how you measure it. This one is the same at the same time. The models we look at are sometimes more than the other. But the two models can't be the same at the same time. The two models? Yes. I believe he used the term they represent complementarity but not simultaneity, something like that. Now, whether what I'm saying in terms of physics is exactly correct, the point I'm making is this koan is trying to say something similar to what I just said.

[85:00]

And it's... And in this... This book, which I don't think most of you have, I don't know if it's available anymore. The Sandokai and the Hōkyōzanmai are both translated in this book, which are referred to in this koan. And it says things in the, for instance, the mind of the great sage of India, the Buddha. is intimately communicated between East and West.

[86:15]

People's faculties or people may be keen or dull, but there are no southern or northern schools. The branching streams flow in the darkness. Merging with principle is still not enlightenment. Each sense and every field interact and do not interact. Anyway, I don't know if she can give me a couple of minutes. So when you read a koan like this and why it keeps repeating itself, over and over again it tells the same story and brings up the same thing from different points of view.

[87:24]

In a way it's trying to do what Niels Bohr was trying to do. And what yogic practice does is to keep putting you into the world and let you, on the one hand, in what we could call naive realism, and another hand, see as something that doesn't follow the rules. So we usually have one way of viewing the world. This koan is trying to present two ways of viewing the world which shift back and forth. So form is... Timeless, right? So form... When we say form is emptiness, it's not there's ocean and earth.

[88:41]

Form is exactly emptiness and emptiness is exactly form. Again, it's not like there's the ocean over there and there's earth here and emptiness is over there like an ocean. So it's that each form is emptiness. Each perception is emptiness. Emptiness is each perception. It's not some generalized emptiness. That makes sense to you, Fit, what I'm saying? There's not some general emptiness of it. Emptiness is a way of viewing this book in its specificity. Emptiness is not separate from this book. So this book, this koan is trying to get you to get a feeling for that. I think I said too much.

[90:02]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_72.4