<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Suzuki Roshi Dharma Talks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks</link>
	<description>A blog of the teachings given by Shunryu Suzuki Roshi.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 22:24:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>November 16th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1072</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1072#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 1969 02:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Nothing Special Collection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zen Mind Beginner's Mind Transcripts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faith]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi Sunday Morning, November 16, 1969 San Francisco Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-16 This morning, I want to talk about our practice. &#160; And here in America, something special is happening:  that is our group.  Our students cannot be categorized in the same way we define Zen student—Zen Buddhist in Japan, because you [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_1074" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 614px"><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SRC0060.jpg"><img class="size-large wp-image-1074 " title="SRC0060" src="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SRC0060-1007x1024.jpg" alt="" width="604" height="614" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Suzuki-roshi performing a ceremony at the Pagoda in Japan-town (San Francisco)</p></div>
<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi</strong></p>
<p><strong>Sunday Morning, November 16, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong>San Francisco</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-16-ns17-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-16</a></p>
<p>This morning, I want to talk about our practice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And here in America, something special is happening:  that is our group.  Our students cannot be categorized in the same way we define Zen student—Zen Buddhist in Japan, because you are not—you are not priest and you are not complete—completely layman.  I understand it this way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That, you know, you are not priest is easy to understand, but that you are not completely layman is—I think you are special, you know, people in our society.  [Laughs.]  Not hippie.  [Laughs.]  But something like that.  [Laughs, laughter.]  So I don&#8217;t know what to say.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So—that is, I think you want some special practice, you know:  not exactly priest practice, not exactly layman&#8217;s practice.  And—but we are on the way to have special, you know—to have some different way of life for us.  That is our Zen community, I think—not community, but our group.  And—and so we have to have some—some appropriate practice for—for us.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Before I talk about our special way of practice, I think it is better to understand—better to understand what is original—what is Dōgen&#8217;s practice.  He says, &#8220;Some may,&#8221; you know, &#8220;attain enlightenment.  Some may not,&#8221; he says.  This is, you know, the point I am very much interested in.  &#8220;Some may attain enlightenment and some may not,&#8221; what mean—which means although we practice same way, same fundamental practice, but some may attain enlightenment and some may not.  It means that even though we do not have enlightenment experience, you know—experience, as long as we sit in proper way, proper right understanding of practice, that is Zen.  The main point is to have right understanding of practice and practice our way seriously.  And what is important point in understanding of our practice is—we say &#8220;big mind,&#8221; or &#8220;small mind,&#8221; or &#8220;buddha-mind,&#8221; but that kind of, you know, words means something—something we cannot—something we should not try to understand in term of experience.</p>
<p><span id="more-1072"></span></p>
<p>&#8220;Enlightenment experience,&#8221; we say, but it is not, you know, some experience which we will have good—in term of good or bad.  It is special experience which is beyond those feeling or a kind of consciousness.  So we should not, you know, ask what is, you know, enlightenment experience.  Even though you ask someone—that you asks that kind of under- [partial word]—ans- [partial word]—question means you don&#8217;t know what is Zen experience—enlightenment experience.  Enlightenment experience is difficult, or impossible, or something you should not try to ask in your ordinal [ordinary] way of thinking.  When you give up this kind of—when you are not involved in this kind of understa- [partial word]—this kind of way of thinking, you have chance to understand what is Zen experience.  I want to, this morning—I want to make this point clear as much as possible.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We say &#8220;big mind,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Big mind.&#8221;  Big mind is not something which you can experience [in] some objective way.  Big mind is something which is always with you, you know, which [is] always on your side, not, you know, objective side—always subjective side, here [pats something].  So you—you see, you cannot see your eyes, you know.  Eyes cannot see themselves.  The eyes only perceive things outside:  objective beings, not eyes itself.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, you know, we cannot see the big mind, because it is always with us—here—right here.  [Laughs.]  If you, you know, reflect on yourself, that self, you know, is not your true self anymore.  You project—when you think about yourself, you project &#8220;you&#8221; as some objective thing, you know.  Do you understand?  Your mind is there.  And your true mind is watching the mind outside.  So mind outside of itself.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When I discussed this point at Tassajara, after lecture, Peter [Schneider?] said, &#8220;mind out of itself.&#8221;  This is very han- [partial word]—very good, you know, interpretation of big mind/small mind:  mind outside of itself.  You know, mind is here, you know, and you project your mind there, and you say this is my mind, and that is self—so-called-it &#8220;self&#8221; or &#8220;small mind,&#8221; a limited mind.  When you understand your mind something like this or like that, you know, it is—you are limiting—you put limitation to the true mind, or you object- [partial word]—objectify your mind, your subjective mind which is always with you.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Why I say so is, you know—this mind is—which is always on your side, is not just your mind.  This mind is universal mind, which is—which is always same, and which is not difference [different] from other&#8217;s mind.  It is big, big mind.  And interesting thing for this mind is, whatever you see, you know, your true mind is always with it, you know.  When you see something like this, you know, although you don&#8217;t know your own mind, but when—at the moment you see something, your mind is here.  [Sounds like he is tapping on the <em>nyoi</em> stick.  Laughs.]  This is very interesting.  [Laughs.]  Always, you know, your mind is always with things you observe—you see.  So this mind is at the same time everything.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We Buddhist, you know, traditionally talk about this kind of mind and this kind of being which is always one with mind, you know.  Usually you may think, &#8220;My mind is watching this cup,&#8221; you know.  Usually you say so.  You understand: my mind is here, and cup is here, and I am watching it.  As I [laughing] tentatively explained, you know, [laughing], my—my mind is always with it.  But this is rather opposite, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Real being is something which is, which—which has two side.  You may think this is mind, or this is cup—it is rather confusing. [Laughs.]  But did you understand what I mean?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When we understand mind in this way, that is big mind, which is always with things.  And subjectively speaking, it is mind which is always on this side, not there.  We Buddhist—from Buddha&#8217;s time, we Buddhist do not have any idea of material only, or mind only, or we do not say our mind produce things, or mind is a kind of attribute of materialistic being.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We always—in Buddhism, mind and body, or mind and material is always one, and we are talking ab- [partial word]—always talking about this, even though sometime we say &#8220;dharma.&#8221;  That dharma means, you know, mind and body being—or mind and material—spiritual and material being.  We are always talking about it.  But, you know, if you carelessly, you know, carelessly listen to it or hear it, we are—as if we are talking about some material and some spiritual being.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So when we say &#8220;material,&#8221; or when we say &#8220;big mind,&#8221; that will be version of it, maybe.  Mind which is always with being, with objective being, or mind which is always with—on this side [pats something three times], that is true mind.  So enlightenment experience is, you know, to figure out, or to understand this mind which is always with us, which we cannot see it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So that is why Dōgen-zenji says, &#8220;Don&#8217;t think,&#8221; you know, &#8220;we will have—don&#8217;t expect all of us who practice zazen will attain enlightenment about,&#8221; you know, &#8220;this mind, which is always with us.&#8221;  It—it mean that if you think, you know, big mind is somewhere outside of yourself, then that is mistake.  If you practice zazen ex- [partial word]—expecting something outside of yourself, that is mistake.  Did you understand this point?  Because the big mind is always with us.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>If you try to, you know—when you try to attain enlightenment as if you see the bright star in the sky, &#8220;Oh!  That&#8217;s beautiful,&#8221; you know. &#8220;<span style="text-decoration: underline;">This is enlightenment</span>.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  But that is not true enlightenment.  That is more—for us that is heresy, you know.  You, you know—you found out [laughs] something there which—which was—which is—object of yourself, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So when you understand the enlightenment experience in that way, that is more—strictly speaking, that is heresy.  You, you know, have idea of material only.  Even though you don&#8217;t feel in that way, but version of your enlightenment experience is exactly like that.  There is something material only, or object of your mind exists there, and because of good practice of yourself, you could found out that bright star.  So in this statement, there is the idea of, you know, self.  And idea of the objects.  That is not, you know, how to seek for enlightenment.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When—the morning I left Tassajara, students has—had discussion.  And someone said, being and doing, you know—we are discussing about our practice of, you know, eating and sleeping.  [Laughs.]  And we started to discuss about sex, but that discussion about sex doesn&#8217;t work so well.  [Laughs, laughter.]  I thought it is impossible to, you know, discuss about six—sex.  Even though you try, it is very difficult—very difficult discussion.  You will be involved in very, you know, endless, you know, discussion, because sex problem, or sex is—if you say &#8220;sex,&#8221; whatever we do [laughing] is sexual activity.  So to talk about sex means to talk about our life, to talk about <span style="text-decoration: underline;">whole</span> Buddhism.  [Laughs, laughter.]  So I thought it doesn&#8217;t mean, you know, to talk about only sex.  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>If we want to talk about sex, we have to, you know, talk about—we have to discuss about what is Buddhism from the beginning.  That is almost impossible to discuss.  Too big problem.  Actually, if you understand sex in that way there&#8217;s no more sex problem.  [Laughs.]  No more sex because there is no—nothing to—problem—problem of sex is not any special problem.  That is, you know, that is our—to—that is actually our life.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You say, &#8220;Oh, how beautiful this flower is!&#8221;  When you say so, that is already sex.  [Laughs.]  We understand in that way.  Our version of, &#8220;Don&#8217;t be immoral,&#8221; you know, means, &#8220;<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Don&#8217;t say this is wonderful</span>,&#8221; you know.  That is—our unders- [partial word]—our version of the fourth precept.  I shouldn&#8217;t be involved in this kind of discussion right now, so [laughs] I have to skip this [laughing, laughter].  Ex- [partial word]—I don&#8217;t want to explain it right now—what I was going to say, by the way [laughing].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Doing and being.  When we discuss about being, you know—being—we are already involved in something material only or something spiritual only.  When we, you know, try to understand doing—doing is practice, you know, then our discussion is Buddhist discussion.  When we discuss doing, doing include two sides of be- [partial word]—two sides of—include two side anyway:  being and non-being, right and wrong, good and bad.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When you think, you know—you see whether I want to stay in bed, you know, one minutes more.  On the other hand you say, &#8220;I must get up,&#8221; you know, &#8220;right now, to practice zazen.&#8221;  That is more idea [laughs] of being, you know, being in bed.  You are thinking about being, you know, your being in Zen meditation hall, and you cannot be two beings at the same time.  So there is conflict.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When you understand yourself—who is … <em>[Sentence not finished.  Tape turned over.]</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>… then you think you understand yourself by doing, by getting up when you try to lays your head, or support your body by your, you know, arm, there there is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">true</span> practice.  You are right there.  When you are thinking about your being in bed or your being in zendō, naturally your—your mind will be divided in two—split in two, and it will create problem.  So someone said this is, in short, the problem of doing and being.  I think this is very—he, you know, he had—when he said so, he had key point of our zendō life.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Why I started to talk about this point—about this kind of thing is—priest—as a priest, you know, I think we—at least we have to have deeper understanding—more accurate understanding about our practice.  And we should have some enlightenment experience, at least.  We should be, you know, not only able to—being able to talk about—about practice, we should experience, you know—we must have full experience—better experience of our practice.  And for—for someone, you know, it is necessary to have—to put confidence in your big mind which is always with you.  And you should be able to appreciate things, you know, as a expression of the big mind.  In short, you must have some faith in big mind, which I explained.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is—actually, if you understand what I said now, it is actually more than faith, you know.  It is ultimate truth which you cannot reject.  Whether it is, you know, difficult to practice in that—whether it is easier or difficult to understand or to practice it literally, you—this is the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">absolute</span> truth which you <span style="text-decoration: underline;">must</span> accept.  And you must have anyway strong confidence in your big mind which is always with you, which you will find wherever you go.  I think this is—if you, you know, have strong confidence, at—I think you are already, in its true sense, Buddhist even though you don&#8217;t attain enlightenment.  Your, you know, your practice will develop, and you have not much danger [of] being sick or being in confusion.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Mostly, you know, physically and mentally when we become sick, you know, it is lack of confidence in your self which is always with you, and [you] seek for something, or try to be something else.  You know, when you are sick, you should be sick [laughs] because there is true you.  You will find true mind at that time in your sickness.  So, you know, supported by everything, being supported by everything, you just lie on your bed like this, you know.  The bed will be very comfortable, you know, warm, nice bed.  When you have this kind of feeling, I think your sickness is already maybe 80, 90% over.  You are recovered already.  But most people struggle, you know, in the cold bed.  &#8220;Oh!  I should—I [laughs]—I must recover,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Tomorrow we have party, so I cannot stay in bed.&#8221;  So he may struggle.  &#8220;I have a baby, so I must get well.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In this way, if you struggle in your bed, that is very serious illness.  Because of lack of understanding of yourself, and because you don&#8217;t understand what is &#8220;you,&#8221; you become sick.  I am sure—I am quite sure, most people is ill, not healthy at all.  But when you do not think you are sick, you are healthy.  When you think you are sick, you are sick.  [Laughs.]  That&#8217;s all.  You may have some opposition to this kind of statement, but this is very true.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So how—I want to help people, you know, sick people, mentally or physically.  I wish I could give my, you know, my understanding to him or to her.  But it looks like—quite—very difficult for them to understand, to—to put faith in themselves, to understand big mind.  I think best way is to practice our way before you are involved in this kind of, you know, sickness caused by yourself, caused by lack of understanding of yourself.  Especially, you know, people whose parents or grandparents had some special illness.  They are always in fear of getting same illness which their mother or father or grandmother or grandfather had.  This is terrible thing, you know.  Even though you are healthy, mentally you are ill, seriously ill.  You are always confronting with the fear of being sick.  Whether or not it&#8217;s—their parents are, you know, mentally and physically healthy or not, he will be sick if he has—if they have that kind of fear always.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So how to get out of this kind of fear is to practice zazen.  And to get out of—or to get rid of the mind outside of yourself.  And to resume to your practice, to your actual being and practice, to find out yourself as <span style="text-decoration: underline;">doing</span>—someone who is doing something, who is always with everything—with Buddha—and who is supported fully by everything.  Then you are quite safe.  When you are safe this moment, it means that you are—in future you are safe.  When this moment of yourself is not safe, next moment of you will be sa- [partial word]—will be in danger.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>For us, you know, today—tomorrow is future of this moment [tapping stick], you know, nothing but future of this moment.  So when you think you are in danger right now, you know, tomorrow also you will be in danger—for you, I mean, for you right now.  So when you continue this kind of confidence in yourself:  today will be all right, tomorrow will be all right, and always with—you are on the—on the track.  When you lose this point, you know, that is—you will be lost, and you will continue this kind of dangerous life, and you will be in fear always.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So it is necessary for you to be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">able</span> to be—get out of it in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">this</span> moment, right <span style="text-decoration: underline;">now</span>.  You may say &#8220;It is not possible,&#8221; but it is possible.  Even in one moment you can do that.  That means it is possible.  That you can do it in this moment means you can do it always.  So if you see this kind of flash of lightning in dark, fearful, you know, sky, &#8220;Oh!&#8221; that is it.  That is your enlightenment experience.  You have great confidence in yourself.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is, you know, how to be a Buddhist in its true—true sense.  The difference between layman or Buddhist is not big problem.  Whether we attain—whether we have, you know, enlightenment experience or not is minor problem.  So someone may attain enlightenment, someone may not.  But they are <span style="text-decoration: underline;">all</span> Buddhist.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I have been thinking about future, you know, [of] Buddhism in America pretty long time.  And if we concentrated on this point, naturally this kind of problem will be solved.  Anyway, you know, it is good thing.  I feel in America the young generation has a great opportunity to find out the true way of life for human being, because in Japan or in undeveloped countries, they have to have—be—they have to be involved still [in] materialistic problem.  Here in America you haven&#8217;t, you know, this kind of problem any more.  Maybe you have, because you reject it.  [Laughs.]  The people in [laughs] Japan, they have this problem—<span style="text-decoration: underline;">want</span> of material, so they—always to gain it, that is problem.  But you are rejecting it, rather.  &#8220;No, I don&#8217;t want any car.  I don&#8217;t want bankbook [laughs].  I don&#8217;t care.&#8221;  &#8220;I don&#8217;t care&#8221; is very good, I think.  But there is no need for you to reject it.  That is too much.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Anyway, I think you started Zen practice in best condition, and with very pure mind.  So you will understand Buddha&#8217;s teaching in it—as he meant, exactly.  Something will happen to us anyway, I think.  In—in maybe—I don&#8217;t know when [laughs]—tomorrow or next year, I don&#8217;t know—maybe after I—maybe I will see you from the—I will see you from the ground, like this.  [Laughs, laughter.]  I don&#8217;t know when, but something <span style="text-decoration: underline;">must</span> happen.  It is very clear.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t join the—you know, yesterday&#8217;s peace walk, but I heard of it, and I was very—very much encouraged by it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I think it is the time to start our practice in its true sense, forgetting all about robed person or hippy-style person [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s—<em>Gya te, gya te—</em>recite <em>Gya te, gya te, ha ra gya te</em>,<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>  and join the procession, join our practice.  Thank you.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>_______________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center transcript entered onto disk by Jose Escobar, 1997. Transcript checked against tape and made verbatim by Judith Randall and Bill Redican (11/6/00).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  The start of the Prajñāpāramitā <em>mantra</em> in Japanese version of Sanskrit, recited at the end of the <em>Heart Sūtra</em>:  &#8220;Gone, gone to the other shore ….&#8221;</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1072</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-16-ns17-t.mp3" length="10980106" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>November 13th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1068</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1068#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 1969 02:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breath Counting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Form & Emptiness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart Sutra]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1068</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi  Thursday Evening, November 13, 1969  Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-13 part 1 Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-13 part 2 Tonight I am supposed to explain &#8220;form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.&#8221;  In—last night, we came to the point to make to clarify especially &#8220;emptiness is form,&#8221; which is rather difficult [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi  </strong></p>
<p><strong>Thursday Evening, November 13, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-13-1-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-13 part 1</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-13-2-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-13 part 2</a></p>
<p>Tonight I am supposed to explain &#8220;form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.&#8221;  In—last night, we came to the point to make to clarify especially &#8220;emptiness is form,&#8221; which is rather difficult to make it clear.  But actually, form is so-to-say &#8220;big mind&#8221;—no, emptiness is &#8220;big mind.&#8221;  And big mind as sky, which contains—which doesn&#8217;t—air or sky, empty sky.  But—&#8221;empty sky,&#8221; we say, but everything grow—when plants and everything grow into the sky, sky doesn&#8217;t care, you know.  And the sky is always ready to accept things in it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And—but our mind is not—should be like a sky, you know, our big mind.  We should accept things as it is, and we should not discriminate things, as the sky doesn&#8217;t discriminate things in which many ex- [partial word]—in which many things exist.  Various being is quite free in the big sky.  But our mind is not so.  &#8220;I like this.  I don&#8217;t like this.  This is beautiful.  But this is not so beautiful.  I like him, but I don&#8217;t like him.  I like this part of him, but the other part is not so good.&#8221;  In this way, our small mind always discriminate things and sometime reject things.  That is small mind.  So small—in the realm of the small mind there are many objects, there are many beings, and that beings exist as if they have self-nature, good nature or bad nature—a beautiful nature or ugly mean nature.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But Mahāyāna—in this way, even though Theravādan teaching accept the teaching of self<span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>ness, their way is more like small-mind way—small-minded way because they acknowledge things, various being which has—which is not empty.  Dharma<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>—when we say dharma<em>, </em>you know, it include our sense organs and mind.  So we have six—five sense organs and mind.  That is six.  And sense object, object of thinking and objects of our sense organs.  And the world which sense organ and sense objects create—get [?] with and create some world—world of sight, world of sound, world of taste, world of feeling.  In this way, each sense organs has world, its—their own world.</p>
<p><span id="more-1068"></span></p>
<p>In this way, in—Theravādan canon acknowledge things—some substantial things.  They count seventy-five dharmas<em>.</em>  But that is actually—not—actually, dharma<em> </em>we say, but that is actually the beings—more psychologically analyzed elements of being.  So this is—it—it doesn&#8217;t—instead of self, Buddha&#8217;s teaching is teaching of self<span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>ness.  So actually instead of saying self, they say five senses, or five elements, or six elements, or six sense objects, or six worlds of each—for each sense organs.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So even though they do not say &#8220;self,&#8221; actually they, you know, acknowledged a self which is as permanent as—as things, dharmas.  The Hinayāna teaching is, in one word, the teaching of existence of dharma [and] nonexistence of self.  That is Hīnayāna canon.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But actually, they—when they say—they—when they acknowledge objective world of objective being, it is same thing to acknowledge self which is observing objects.  Do you understand this point?  That, you know, to acknowledge lamp means to acknowledge my mind which is observing, you know, lamp.  Moreover, you know, when you think, &#8220;I am seeing, observing a lamp,&#8221; you know, as I said before, my mind, my eyes or my mind, or self of mine is projected, and you are reflecting your past experience.  You say &#8220;I am observing,&#8221; but actually I observed a lamp, and you are thinking about &#8220;I&#8221; which is—who is observing lamp.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, it—it is same thing to acknowledge self.  When they say, especially when they say &#8220;lamp is existence, lamp exist like this,&#8221; means I exist and I am observing a lamp.  So even—they say, you know, &#8220;teaching of selflessness.&#8221;  They never say &#8220;self.&#8221;  But actually they—what they mean is, when they say &#8220;here is lamp,&#8221; it means that they acknowledged self which is existent and which is permanent.  This is their nature of canon, or weak point of canon, or immaturity of understanding.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When we understand things in that way, it means that in our mind we have various objects.  And it means that we are discrim- [partial word]—it is sa- [partial word]—as soon as you have some substantial idea of many things, you start to discriminate, and you start to have some feeling of good or bad.  So in that way, we cannot actually obtain big mind which is empty, which is called emptiness.  No big mind actually exist as long as they understand things in that way, objective world in that way.  I mean substantial way and attached to something specially.  That is the nature of, you know, the teaching:  five <em>skandha</em>s<em> </em>are <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> empty, five <em>skandha</em>s<em> </em>are existent.  Five sense <em>dhātu</em>s is existence, or eighteen <em>dhātu</em>s<em> </em>is existent.<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So <em>Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra </em>deny this thought.  In <em>Prajña- </em>[partial word]—according to Mahāyāna, everything [is] empty, not only self but also everything is empty.  There is nothing which is not empty.  It means that in big mind we should include everything as our own children, as our own family.  In our family, you know, they are all a part—they are all part of our parents.  And parents treat them as they treat their own hands and feet.  Actually, there are—childrens are part of parents.  So in that sense when they treat—love children, they have no idea of loving children.  But actually he is—they are loving.  They have no idea of parents, you know.  But actu- [partial word]—that is parents.  When they have no idea of children, they are actually really parents.  You know, if parents has some idea of parent [laughs], they are not parents.  Parents, you know—for children, you know, if they think, you know, &#8220;I am good boy, good children of my father or mother,&#8221; he is not yet so good, you know.  When he thinks, &#8220;I am very bad boy, I am not his—not—I don&#8217;t worth as a children of my parents.&#8221;  Then he may be a good children.  So when parents has no idea of parents, when children has no idea of children, they are, you know, good parents and good children.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The same thing is true with dharma, with our everyday life.  When you think, &#8220;I am doing—I am practicing zazen,&#8221; you know, you are not actually practicing zazen [laughs].  Maybe very painful zazen, or maybe very sleepy zazen—&#8221;Oh!  It&#8217;s terrible.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  When you, you know, want to know what time it is, &#8220;ten more minutes [laughs], five more minutes.&#8221;  That is not zazen, you know.  When you don&#8217;t know what you are doing, that is true zazen.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The big mind is same thing, you know.  When there is no idea of anything, that is big mind, that is emptiness itself.  Now, &#8220;form is emptiness&#8221; is all right.  Form—forget all about form and color.  The form was not observed as some certain form.  That is emptiness.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Then &#8220;emptiness is form&#8221; is maybe next problem, how we understand the &#8220;emptiness is form.&#8221;  Maybe I already explained it, you know, right now.  Emptiness—when—from emptiness, you know, when everything are in state of emptiness, everything, you know, start to appears in its true sense.  Do you understand?  You know, when parents forget himself, he is true parents.  So when emptiness take place, the form appears in its true sense.  That is &#8220;emptiness is form—emptiness is form.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>If I explain it by our actual experience—if I explain it more maybe psychologically or biologically—emptiness, the word emptiness is directed, actually directed to our mind.  It looks like—against Theravādan canon, <em>Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra </em>put emphasis on no eyes, no ears, no nose, no mouth, no body, or no mind, like this.  They put emphasis on emptiness of things, but actually Mahāyāna teaching is directed—is actually—denies the teaching of—put more strength on emptiness of self.  To realize or to experience—how to experience emptiness of self is to practice zazen.  And actual—in actual everyday life we—to experience oneness of objective and subjective world, you know.  When you attain enlightenment it is like this [taps stick twice], you know.  It—we call—we, figuratively speaking, you know, it is like—our zazen is like a chicken in its shell.  When we are ready to come out, you know, the mother—not &#8220;mother chicken&#8221; [laughs]—hen?—or what do you call?—hen will peck it and help the chicken comes out from the shell.  That is, you know, enlightenment experience.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So in your zazen, if your zazen is—if your practice is full practice, you know, it means that you are ready to break the shell and jump out as a small chick, you know [laughs].  So, you know, at that time there is no self, you know.  It looks like he is in a shell, but he is ready to break the shell, and at that time, you know, mother hen will peck, peck.  That is oneness of your practice and enlightenment.  <em>Fffft!</em>  At that time there is no hen or no chicken—chick.  They are one.  They—he is one with everything.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So in emptiness everything exist—obtain same world.  If ten people are practicing zazen, this world is each one of ten student.  So actually, the world of emptiness is one.  But—it is one, but at the same time that world of emptiness could be thousands of people&#8217;s world, past and present and future.  That is &#8220;emptiness is form.&#8221;  Emptiness is one big world which belongs to everyone.  When you forget yourself, you know, you own whole world as a small chicken [chick].  He is not anymore a small chicken—no, chicken, chick?—or what?—I don&#8217;t know how you say.  Each one of them, if they are ten, you know—each one of the ten chick has obtained the same world but, you know, they are enjoying their own world.  But the world they enjoy is one big world.  That is what we mean [by] &#8220;emptiness is form.&#8221;  <em>Mmm.  </em>Does it make some sense?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, you see, when you—your zazen is very good, you know, if a bird come and, you know, sing, you will—the world of bird appear, endless world.  Now we say—in autumn we say, in early autumn, if one sick leaves—what do you say?—not so strong leaves in September, maybe.  Right now almost all the leaves are coming down, but in September or end of August when all the leaves are sick green, one or two leaves may fall.  We say to see one sick falling leaves—seeing one sick falling leaves, we know autumn is all over.  One sick small leaves are our big world.  Autumn is all over.  Or when a bird sing, you know, one bird sing in the mountain, we know that how the calmness of the mountain all the more.  You know, calmness of—it is not matter of sound, you know, if the bird sings it should be noisy [laughs], you know, but because of the one bird we feel the complete calmness of the whole mountain.  When the one bird enjoy whole world, that is complete calmness, that is real calmness, that is real emptiness.  And that is real form of form.  When you think, you know, &#8220;This is bird.  I am here,&#8221; or &#8220;This is sick—just sick falling leaf,&#8221; that is not real falling leaves.  That is the silt<a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>  of your thinking mind.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Oh, yeah, each year at this time of the year, you know, many leaves comes down, fall down.  &#8221;Oh, it is troublesome to see it&#8221; [laughs].  If you feel in that way, that is more Hinayāna way.  Or you attach to the idea of falling leaves because that falling leaves are silt of your experience, not fresh vivid experience.  That is, you know, &#8220;emptiness is form.&#8221;  By form—when form appears from emptiness, there is true form.  The form we know or we acknowledge as a result of thinking or silt of experience, that is not true experience or that is not true form.  So first of all, we deny the silt of experience, subject or object—objective world or subjective world.  First of all, we deny this kind of idea.  And we come back to the more original, vivid experience.  And there we experience the emptiness and form too.  At that time we cannot say, you know, form or emptiness.  Everything is both form and emptiness.  So that is why we say &#8220;emptiness is form.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Okay?  [Laughs.]  Emptiness is form.  Not—it is very logical discernment, but it is not just logical.  It is more based on our actual experience of everyday life.  Not special teaching but, you know, something—some teaching which could be approved, which could be experienced by practice and through everyday life.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Hmm<em>.</em>  [Laughs.]  Okay?  Did you figure out what I want to say?  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  When you say &#8220;big mind&#8221;—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  —you seem to say big mind in the same way that the Theravāda says dharmas.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.  Theravāda—when Theravāda says dharmas, it is, you know, based on idea of existent.  That is why Nāgārjuna, you know, rejected that kind of thinking.  Whatever statement it may be, there is four statements.  But if there is no more than four statements, but whatever the statement may be or understanding may be, if it—it is based on idea of being or idea of nonbeing—this is pair of opposite (being or nonbeing)—it is not right understanding.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>They say, you know—as long as they acknowledge some substantial dharma it means that they don&#8217;t acknowledge the big world of emptiness.  They say our—those—self-nature is empty, but actually they acknowledge, they accept objective substantial dharmas.  When they accept objective, substantial dharma, they are already accept it, the objective, projected self, self out of self.  It is not true self, you know.  Self you reflect on in some experience.  Actually, I attained enlightenment [laughs] on this point.  My first enlightenment was—did I tell you?  [Laughs, laughter.]  I shouldn&#8217;t say so, because I am Sōtō priest [laughs].  You know—</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Tell us anyway.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mmm?  You know, I had very difficult time, you know—bodhis- [partial word]—oh, no—<em>dōshin</em>—<em>dōshin</em>—way-seeking mind.  What is way-seeking mind?  To practice something without any gaining idea.  We should not practice our way for sake of ourselves.  For sake of others, no[t] sake of Buddhism even.  For sake of practice, we should practice.  That is famous statement—very impressive statement, isn&#8217;t it [laughs]?  Very encouraging, you know.  You should practice true way, not even for sake of Buddha.  Not sake of for others.  You should practice our way for sake of the <em>… [Sentence not finished.  Tape turned over.]</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So I wanted to practice our way for sake of practice.  I started the practice, you know.  That practice was to get up thirty minutes earlier than other student.  I was in dormitory at that time.  And before they get up to clean, you know, restroom so that they may not notice me cleaning restroom.  But as I was cleaning, you know, many things happens actually.  I had many times some people coming to restroom.  I saw many room lit up, you know.  &#8220;Oh, he may come,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Because he [laughs]—he get up, he will come pretty soon.&#8221;  So at first I escaped, you know.  I hide myself somewhere so that they may not notice me.  But even so, you know, while I&#8217;m hiding myself, funny feeling [laughs].  I didn&#8217;t know what kind of practice I am practicing [laughs], you know, hiding myself from people [laughs, laughter], so that they may not notice me, you know.  Very strange feeling, you know.  If I&#8217;m doing something good, there will not be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">no need</span> to be afraid of anything.  But I was very afraid of people at that time.  I couldn&#8217;t solve this problem, you know.  And I didn&#8217;t know whether I am practicing, you know, my prac- [partial word]—our practice for sake of practice.  The conclusion was, anyway, this kind of practice cannot be a real practice.  But at the same time, I couldn&#8217;t give up, you know.  I was rather obstinate.  So once I determined to do it, I must <span style="text-decoration: underline;">do</span> it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But the practice I am practicing is very awkward.  I didn&#8217;t know what I was doing.  At that time, when I was—we have to study—we have to take some unit of psychology.  And Professor Iriya<a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>  once told me—told us that if you—it is impossible to actualize your past experience again.  If you think about it, it is already—it is not already actual experience you experienced.  And it is not psychological state which you had.  That word struck me:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Oh.  I shouldn&#8217;t think about my practice anymore.  I shouldn&#8217;t think about my,&#8221; you know, &#8220;state of mind or my experience.  I shouldn&#8217;t criticize my experience.  Maybe whatever happened it doesn&#8217;t matter, so if I do it because I have to do it, that&#8217;s all, you know.  You shouldn&#8217;t say—I shouldn&#8217;t say my practice is pure or impure, or for sake of others or for [laughs] sake of Buddha or sake of practice.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is useless thing to think about, so I gave up to think about my practice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Since then I didn&#8217;t mind [laughs].  Whoever come, I clean.  &#8220;Just a moment, I&#8217;m cleaning this,&#8221; you know, &#8220;this place.  So you should go that way.  You should go the other restroom.&#8221;  So when you, you know, when you think about—when you feel as if you are doing something, you know, at the same time you are accept[ing] it.  You projected &#8220;you&#8221; outside of yourself, and you are criticizing &#8220;you&#8221; which is outside of yourself.  It is not true you.  True you is on your side always, which cannot be criticized [laughs].  It is foolish, you know, to criticize yourself.  I had that kind of, you know, enlightenment at that time.  [Claps hands together.]  &#8220;Okay!&#8221;  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is what—exactly what Mahāyāna Buddhist started to think about.  To name various elements, you know, eighteen<a title="" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>  or seventy-five,<a title="" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>  it is maybe very foolish thing.  Whether that is empty or not empty [laughs] is very far away from our actual life.  And when you think in that way, you are involved in that kind of thinking, far away from the buddha-mind.  Some more question?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Then what is small mind used for?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Small mind—in this case I mean, you know, small mind is mind which attach to many things, you know.  Why you attach to things is you have a kind of idea of substantial—you acknowledge substantial element in things.  Because you think, &#8220;Here is a cup,&#8221; you know, you attach to it.  But actually, the cup is not some independent—something which has its own self-nature.  Because you see the cup, you know, cup exist.  If you don&#8217;t see it, there is no cup.  Because cup exist, I exist here, you know.  That is teaching of interdependence.  Because I exist, cup exist.  Because cup exist, I exist.  If I don&#8217;t exist, cup doesn&#8217;t exist.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  If you see the cup, but you don&#8217;t say to yourself, &#8220;I see a cup&#8221;—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  —if you see the cup, but you don&#8217;t attach any particular thing to it, like saying it&#8217;s a cup.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.  It means that when I say, &#8220;I see a cup,&#8221; means I—this cup is mine [pats self], a part of me, a part of big self.  Not something which exist outside of me.  And that, you know, that &#8220;me&#8221; which actually observing a cup is not the self which is projected to somewhere, you know, and &#8220;I have a cup.&#8221;  This self is picture of true self or picture of big mind which include everything.  So we are always talking about projected self as if that kind of self exist.  But it doesn&#8217;t!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You know, if I say whether I am doing right practice or not, that is projected self which can be criticized, you know.  But even though you criticize it, that is not myself anymore.  &#8220;I am here always [pats self], true self is always with me, and moment after moment with me.  And we are—I am completely involved in something which I am doing right now.&#8221;  Our life is continuity of this kind of life.  I am here, here, here.  And on each moment we are including many things.  That is true &#8220;I.&#8221;  But projected self or self which is the object of thinking mind is not true self.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What was your question, by the way [laughs]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  I asked you what was the use of the small mind.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Small mind—use of?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Yeah, what is its—it&#8217;s there, but you, of course, say it doesn&#8217;t exist.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Small mind doesn&#8217;t exist actually.  It is the silt of thinking mind.  Small mind doesn&#8217;t.  You think as if, you know, it is quite natural for us to think in that way.  But actually, if you think more, and if you, you know, want to do something, you know, as Buddha told you, you know, with that kind of mind you cannot do anything.  Projected mind doesn&#8217;t work at all.  It will create always many trouble [laughs] because it is dead one, you know, it is not active one.  And moreover, it changes, you know, like a ghost.  True self, when it changes there is—must be some reason.  But without any reason, you know, if someone criticize this [taps on something like a water pitcher] projected self, you think as if you did very bad thing.  If you think, you know, &#8220;I did very nasty thing,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Why you get up so early and clean the restroom?  You <span style="text-decoration: underline;">nasty</span> fellow [laughs],&#8221; you may say.  You yourself will criticize you, you know.  That &#8220;you&#8221; is not here, not me, but there—self which you think there was two, three days ago [laughs].  That&#8217;s—it doesn&#8217;t mean anything.  That is why we have to live in each moment.  It means that don&#8217;t criticize your projected self.  Self it might be in future; self it was in past.  But that is—that kind of self doesn&#8217;t exist.  At least useless, you know.  No end in treating that kind of self.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Rōshi, is it possible to criticize yourself in the present?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>No.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  It doesn&#8217;t seem like it wouldn&#8217;t [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  It doesn&#8217;t seem like it wouldn&#8217;t [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Criticize yourself?  Criticize yours- [partial word]—whether you are fully, you know, fully occupied or involved in what you are doing or not would be the point.  When Dōgen says you shouldn&#8217;t talk about the teaching which is lofty or which is not so lofty.  You shouldn&#8217;t say so.  But you should know whether your practice is true practice or not.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  So if our practice is lazy practice, then we should just let it be lazy.  I was thinking that it is lazy, so we shouldn&#8217;t try to practice hard because that&#8217;s then projecting something.  That&#8217;s wrong understanding to be practicing hard.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs.]  But you can say so, you know, by words [laughs].  But if you—if your practice is—why, you know, you have lazy practice is, you know, [because] just half of yourself is working or something, and half of it is—belongs to past or somewhere else, you know.  You are not here, and—you are not actually here, and you are not actually doing thing lazy.  When you are lazy, you know, when you, you know, feel very sleepy, you know, at the same moment, &#8220;I must stay in bed.  Why I was so sleepy,&#8221; you know, &#8220;I am so sleepy?&#8221;  In this way, you will have—your s- [partial word]—the self will be projected in various ways.  That is why we become lazy.  So the best way is to get up as soon as you hear the bell [laughs], before you think anything.  That is, you know, the practice.  We are always involved in thinking mind and, you know—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:  </strong>But supposed we just don&#8217;t get up to the bell.  Should we say to ourselves, &#8220;I should get up for the bell&#8221; or should we just—or just not do anything at all but just stay in bed [laughter]?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>You see, there is interesting argument [laughs, laughter].  You know, this, you know—when you hear the bell, that moment include your past and future, you know.  And next moment include its own past and future.  So, you know, when—the moment you get up, you know, it has the—has its own future.  Zendō is in your—zendō belongs to that moment.  And to wash your face also included at that moment has its own past and future.  There is no—noth- [partial word]—no experience or no activity which has no past or future.  It belongs to each moment.  Maybe you can call it intuition because there is no time even to think about.  It appears in that way.  Because I, you know, explain it by words I have to say its own past or future.  But intuitively, you appears in empty world in that way.  That is your own emptiness.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So what is bad?  That which we cannot do is bad.  What is good?  Something which you want to do, it is good, you know.  That is why Dōgen said so.  At that moment intuitively we know that.  If you think there is many things to say, but before you think—the world you have before you think is actual world on which you should strive for.  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  Did you say that the cup is a projection of self?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  Is that a projection of the small mind?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi: </strong> Project—not real projection, you know.  It is something which arise in relation to the objective being.  The more you think, you may lose the point, you know.  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Suppose I—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  In—in—in—just a moment—in one word, you know, your thinking is involved in, based on, you know, the idea of being.  That is the trouble [?].  You are caught by illusion or shadow of the being.  That is a trouble [?].  Because you think, you know, something exist here in this way, that is, you know, idea of being.  The opposite background of thinking is non-being.  Just to think whether lamp exist here or not exist here.  When we say &#8220;nothingness,&#8221; you know, you may think the opposite of being, you know.  There is no such thing like lamp exist.  That is, you know, the opposite of thinking of being.  Being or non-being.  Complete—there is no complete idea of being or complete idea of non-being.  Nothing arise from nothingness.  Nothing vanish into non-being.  But, you know, I don&#8217;t know why, but—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  —when we think, we think in that way.  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  When the breath goes out, and we count &#8220;one,&#8221; and then &#8220;two,&#8221; are we attaching to breathing?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.  No.  No.  Watching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Oh by—yeah, by watching it, creating an object, thinking mind seeing something happening—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  —breathing happening.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.  Moment after moment, you—that is, you know, the subtle distinction from real breathing, counting-breathing practice, and not true one, you know.  You don&#8217;t count just to know how many, you know [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Couldn&#8217;t handle it [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Huh?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  We stopped at ten and go back to one.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  But what is it that perceives a breath going out to call it &#8220;number one, number two,&#8221; and so forth.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Number two.  The—we choose the most simplest activity on which we don&#8217;t—about which we don&#8217;t think.  It is another practice of following-breathing practice.  The point is not to count but to—not to one [?] with your practice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  If—if you don&#8217;t make—can you get mechanical that way, like just &#8220;one&#8221; [2-3 words]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Not mechanical, you know.  My understanding of mechanic is just to do, you know, just to work, just to count [to] ten, you know.  And something which produce ten something, you know, ten breathing, that is more mechanical way.  And without using not much body or mind, you can produce something.  That is mechanism.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  But when you count your breathing it is very simple to count from one to ten, but each breathing should be, you know—on each breathing all of your mind and body should participate.  With whole body and mind you take one breathing.  And instead of saying something else you say, &#8220;one, two.&#8221;  See?  That is practice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Thank you, Rōshi.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  Rōshi, when you&#8217;re sitting counting your breathing like that, and you&#8217;re involved in saying &#8220;one&#8221; and following your breath out, it seems like there&#8217;s a kind of split of one part of you or you being involved in the following of the breathing—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh.  Yeah.  Yeah.  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  —and another part on another side was something being aware of the whole action taking place, of being aware of your concentration on following, and another that seems to be aware that&#8217;s not even involved in it but aware of it taking place.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Aware of—I don&#8217;t know what do you mean by &#8220;aware of,&#8221; but—</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  Well, count like—you&#8217;re following your breath, and are you counting as you&#8217;re breathing, and you&#8217;re—say you&#8217;re very carefully trying to follow your breathing, and yet at the same time you&#8217;re aware of all of it taking place.  All—you&#8217;re aware of your action, aware of your counting your &#8220;one,&#8221; your &#8220;two.&#8221;  Seems like there&#8217;s a split.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi: </strong> S- [partial word]?  No.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  One part is observes the other.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  One part is observing.  You&#8217;re doing this action—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  —or is not just observing but just aware that it&#8217;s taking place—</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh, I see.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  —even—even if—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  You are watching, you know, yourself.  Oh, that is—that is not the way.  Why you count is—some element, you know, of watch—to watch yourself [is] involved.  Because you go—if you go &#8220;twenty&#8221; or &#8220;thirty,&#8221; &#8220;Oh my!&#8221;  [Laughs.]  That much, you know, observation is involved.  But I don&#8217;t mean on each breathing you should be very careful, you know.  Instead of being careful about what you are doing, you should take your breathing with your whole body and mind.  Then you have no time to watch.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is same thing as you make calligraphy, you know, your—or penmanship.  Maybe you&#8217;re watching, you know, so that you may not—your penmanship doesn&#8217;t go outside of your line [laughs].  But not to go outside of your line, you know, you are making best effort.  And that is not you observing it, because—why you think in that way is maybe, I think—the zazen practice is—looks like too easy, you know, so you have time to think about it [laughs].  But even when you are doing very simple easy thing, you should be able to do it as if you are doing very difficult thing.  And at the same time, so that you can do difficult thing as if you are doing very easy thing, you sh- [partial word]—we should practice zazen.  Do you—do you understand the point?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>A cats, for an—a tiger, or an instance, use whole attention and whole strength even when he catch small fish.  <em>Ffft!</em>  [Laughs.]  His attitude is same as to catch a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">big</span>, you know, animal.  The tiger has no fear, you know, even though he catches big animal, he can do it as if he catches small fish.  Even when he is catching small fish, his way is same way as he catches big animal.  How he could do so is the point.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Usually, you know, human being, we—if it is easy, you know, that is quite easy:  &#8220;Maybe I can do it tomorrow&#8221; [laughs].  That is our way mostly.  &#8220;Oh, this is quite easy.&#8221;  And you don&#8217;t make—your attitude is quite different from when you do something difficult.  That kind of person has big difficulty when he confront with something great—great difficulty.  Someone who looks like very bold and very strong is not actually so strong when he face, confront with some big enemy or big difficulty.  He will be the first one who may run away [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When—if someone who is doing—who will do small things with—not &#8220;care&#8221;—but with—we say, <em>suki no nai.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>   <em>Suki no nai</em> means—I don&#8217;t know what.  If, you know, this cup has some leakage, it is <em>suki aru.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>  <em> Suki no nai</em> is &#8220;no—no—no gap,&#8221; or &#8220;no chance to take advantage of.&#8221;  If a lady—if a young beautiful lady want to protect himself [herself] from wolf with black hair, long and short [laughs], you know, the way is not to shout or to run away, but we say <em>suki no nai taido.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a><em>   Suki no nai taido.</em>  No—she behave quite natural and beautifully, maybe sometime charming [laughs], but no—he—she doesn&#8217;t give any chance to be taken advantage of.  That is <em>suki no nai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You know, that kind—zazen practice is something like that.  [Laughs.]  Even though you are always making face, you know [laughs], it doesn&#8217;t protect yourself from cats and dogs [laughs].  Even though you are quite natural and charming enough, but—&#8221;Oh my!&#8221; [laughs], they will run away, you know, if they have some ambition.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is what is told in <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.  Even though you met with big snake, snake cannot bite you.  If you are going to be cut by big sword by bandit—what do you call [it]?—hmm?—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  [1 words unclear.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  —by black-masked [bandit], you—the sword will be broken piece by piece.  That is, you know, <em>suki no nai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, you know, zazen practice is always, you know, figuratively … <em>[End of original tape.  It sounded like the last sentence was not finished on tape.]</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>_______________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape transcribed verbatim by Diana Bartle and checked against tape by Bill Redican (7/31/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  Suzuki-rōshi pronounced it more like &#8220;dhamma&#8221; (the Pāli form) throughout, but the Sanskrit &#8220;dharma&#8221; is used here for the sake of consistency.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  <em>dhātu</em> (San., Pāli):  region, realm, element.  The 18 <em>dhātu</em>s are the physical and/or mental elements that determine all mental processes (e.g., organ of sight, mind-consciousness, etc.).  The five <em>dhātu</em>s Suzuki-rōshi referred to may be the five <em>skandha</em>s.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  Suzuki-rōshi pronounced &#8220;silt&#8221; very clearly here and later in the lecture.  If he had looked up the word in a dictionary before the lecture, as he often did, he would have found a definition like:  &#8220;a sediment consisting of very fine particles.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [4]  Professor Yoshitaka Iriya, an authority in Tang colloquial language.  One of the authors (with Sasaki and Fraser) of <em>A Man of Zen:  The Recorded Sayings of Layman P&#8217;ang</em>. (1971); author of <em>Rinzairoku</em> (1989); <em>Gensha kōroku</em> (<em>Comprehensive Record of Xuansha</em>) (1987–1989), <em>Zengo jiten</em> (1991), and other works.  He was director of research for the First Zen Institute of America in Japan, and he contributed significantly to the research for <em>Zen Dust</em> (p. xxi).  Suzuki-rōshi also talks about Prof. Iriya in Lecture SR-67-09-08B.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [5]  The 18 <em>dhātu</em>s.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [6]  Possibly the 75 Sarvāstavādan dharmas, which constitute the final, indivisible, real units of existence.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [7]  <em>suki no nai</em> (Jap.):  <em>suki</em> = opening; unguarded moment, flaw, space, or room; <em>no</em> = of; <em>nai</em> = no.  Hence, to be always on alert; to be thoroughly guarded.  See also SR-71-03-02 for a similar term.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [8]  <em>aru</em> (Jap.):  some, certain.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [9]  <em>taido</em> (Jap.):  attitude.</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1068</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-13-1-t.mp3" length="11943507" type="audio/mpeg" />
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-13-2-t.mp3" length="5081171" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>November 11th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1062</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1062#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 1969 02:30:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lotus Sutra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zazen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1062</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi Tuesday, November 11, 1969 San Francisco Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-11 part 1 Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-11 part 2 Suzuki-rōshi:  If you—if you have some question, I am happy to answer for the question.  And in that way, if necessary, I will refer to the Lotus Sūtra.  Hai. &#160; Student [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SR0064.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-1065" title="Suzuki-roshi at Tassajara" src="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SR0064-732x1024.jpg" alt="" width="439" height="614" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi</strong></p>
<p><strong>Tuesday, November 11, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong>San Francisco</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-11-1-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-11 part 1</a></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-11-2-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-11 part 2</a></p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  If you—if you have some question, I am happy to answer for the question.  And in that way, if necessary, I will refer to the <em>Lotus Sūtra.</em>  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  What is &#8220;no outflows&#8221; mean in the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?  No?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  &#8220;No outflows.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No outflows.  &#8220;No outflows&#8221; means, you know, by—because our practice is not, you know, sincere or not complete, there are many leakage [laughs] in your life and practice.  That ["no outflows"] is the opposite of to have many leakage.  It means mostly desires, you know:  to let your desire, you know, as it goes this way, that way.  That is leakage.  And to control our desires [is] like to build a big leather [?] ball [?] without any leakage.  That is &#8220;no outflow.&#8221;  It is more, you know, more <em>arhat</em> kind [of] practice:  very, maybe, negative practice.  Some other questions?  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  In the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> they say the Buddha-seed arises from conditions.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Buddha&#8217;s what?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  The Buddha-seed—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Seed</span>.  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  —arises from conditions.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Do you know what that means—what they mean there?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  What—conditions—seed—if you, you know, sew a seed, seed will be the cause of—because of the seed, of course, plants comes out.  And it will have fruits—flower or fruits or branches.  But without aid of rain or manure it will not, you know, grow.  It means, you know, aid or things, you know, result by seed and by aid of something.  I think you—your culture put more emphasis on aid.  If aid is good, you know, result will be—you have good fruits.  And how to improve the social condition is the most important point in your culture.  But some other culture put emphasis on seed more, maybe like Communism.</p>
<p><span id="more-1062"></span></p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Could you explain that?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?  Explain it more?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  I don&#8217;t understand how Communism puts emphasis on the seed.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>You know, Communism is—I don&#8217;t so well, so—I&#8217;m not Communist, so [laughs, laughter]—but in Soviet Union, you know, if you put emphasis on, you know—if you have some—some—whatever the study may be, sociology or anthropology or whatever it may be, if you put emphasis on aid, you know, the government will not accept your theory.  But both—I think both is too one-sided, I think.  Seed is important, and aid is also important.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In Communism, the social structure [is] nearly the—nearly the same to everyone.  [It is] supposed to be, but actually I don&#8217;t think so.  Someone who has great power—great enough or strong enough to control people, they have more chance, although social structure looks like same [chance?].  So the aid is same to—equal to everyone, but there is some, you know, there should be some difference between people.  Someone may be—may be a secretary, someone may be a just, you know, working by normal [?].  How—this kind of difference is original.  If someone&#8217;s seed, or someone has good seed, you know, he has that much chance.  But in—in our society, we put more emphasis on how to—if we improve—if we improved politics or if we give people chance to develop, people may be happy.  And we don&#8217;t put emphasis on the difference of the—so—we don&#8217;t put not much emphasis on who is more capable or who is not.  We treat people in the same way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So we sort of ignore the each one&#8217;s—each one&#8217;s original or each one&#8217;s own ability.  That is what I meant.  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  I don&#8217;t understand the difference between the egg [<em>sic</em>:  aid] and the seed—how you&#8217;re using it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Seed?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  The basic difference, you know, between the two things.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Basic difference, you know—it is cause and affect.  The, you know, relationship cause and affect is more seed, you know.  If you sew a seed, you will have some certain kind of plants.  That is seed.  And seed and relationship—seed and fruit.  The rain or, you know, wind or sunshine is not direct—is not real—is not seed, you know.  Aid for seed—some factors, conditions which will make—which will help the relationship between cause and affect.  That is what I meant.  In Buddhism we say <em>innen</em>:<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>  <em>in</em> is seed, <em>en</em> is aid.  And <em>in</em> and aid are—[both] seed and aid is necessary for something to go or something to result.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Is the egg like the condition?  The egg is something that has met certain conditions—has grown somewhat?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Aid is something to help, you know—to result something from seed [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D to Student C:</strong>  Aid.  &#8220;A-I-D.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Oh, I thought he said &#8220;E-G-G&#8221;—<span style="text-decoration: underline;">egg</span>.  [Laughs, laughter.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Excuse me [laughs].  You know, egg—for egg [laughs], the, you know, temperature of mother hen is aid [laughs, laughter].  Some other questions?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  In the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>, the Buddha seems to make a distinction between nirvāna, or the stopping of pain, and complete perfect enlightenment—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  —which is also <em>tathāgata</em> [1 word].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Could you talk some about the difference between these two things?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Nirvāna is more, you know—it is same kinds of words as &#8220;no leakage,&#8221; you know.  Extinction of all desire is nirvāna.  No leakage, no outflow is nirvāna.  And enlightenment or <em>anuttara-samyak-sambodhi</em><a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>  is enlightened stage more in a positive expression of same stage.  But one is more Mahāyāna way, and the other is more Hīnayāna way.  For an instance, <em>arhat</em>—before—<em>arhat</em> keeping various precepts and following Buddha&#8217;s teaching, he may attain <em>arhat</em>.  The practice of <em>arhat</em> is more passive and more negative.  And the other is more active, you know, more positive—to have Buddha wisdom.  And here there is many words for that.  For an instance, we have term—or technical term like <em>issai-shu-chi</em>.<a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>  <em>Issai-shu-chi</em> is &#8220;various wisdom.&#8221;  The difference between our wis- [partial word]—our knowledge and Buddha&#8217;s knowledge is our knowledge is accumulation of, you know, various knowledge.  Not much, you know, not much relationship between one knowledge and the other knowledge.  Not much system between various knowledge we have, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But Buddha&#8217;s knowledge is one which include—each one of the knowledge include the other knowledge—that is <em>issai-shu-chi</em>.  So if you pick up—if you understand Buddha&#8217;s knowledge—one Buddha&#8217;s knowledge, you know, about—for an instance, about human nature, then the other knowledge will be included.  That kind of knowledge is buddha-knowledge.  And that kind of way of observing things, or that kind of practice, is enlightenment.  It looks like completely different approach, but it is just two ways of expression of one knowledge.  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F [Bill Shurtleff]:  </strong>In the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>, the chapter &#8220;Duration of the Life of the Tathāgata,&#8221; this—the chapter is preceded by a building-up—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  —in which we learn that we&#8217;re about to hear some very, very important truth.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  And after this chapter, it&#8217;s emphasized again and again and again how important this truth is to keep in mind:  the &#8220;Duration of the Life of the Tathāgata.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>    And in that chapter, the Tathāgata reveals that he actually attained enlightenment innumerable <em>kalpa</em>s before—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  —and that he is only making an <span style="text-decoration: underline;">appearance</span> of extinction, but in fact there is no—he was not enlightened as Shākyamuni and will not obtain extinction as Shākyamuni.  Is this the same thing?  Is this another way of saying what Dōgen says when he talks about all beings already being in enlightenment and manifesting their enlightenment from day to day—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  —or is this something else that is being said?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:  </strong>It is same thing, you know.  It is—if we say we are all— originally we are all enlightened people, you know, to attain enlightenment just to know what we have in our sleeve [does something with his sleeve] here.  But although you have it, if you don&#8217;t know that you have, you know, that is same as you don&#8217;t have it.  So this kind of idea—all of—all of us has buddha-nature.  This kind of idea is more—although <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> has two side, but <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> put more emphasis on everyone has buddha-nature.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So if you practice hard enough or long enough you will attain enlightenment.  But that attainment is not to have something to acquire something from others—from other source.  Just to find out what we have is, you know, to attain enlightenment.  And when Dōgen put emphasis on this point, he also put emphasis on real self, or essence of mind, or buddha-nature.  Or he—he mostly use the word <em>anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, </em>which is something, you know, we have and something we attain by effort.  It is both—it is both attainment, and it also something we have originally.  When we say—when we translate it &#8220;supreme incomparable <em>bodhi,</em>&#8221; it is something—it sounds [like] something which we attain by our effort, but it is actually something which we have.  So when he explain it, he says, &#8220;Wisdom seek for wisdom,&#8221; and <em>anuttara-samyak-sambodhi</em> is actually wisdom.  &#8220;Wisdom seek for wisdom.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So wisdom we have seek for wisdom.  That is actually what we are doing.  Only when you discriminate your practice, you know, it looks like there is good practice or bad practice.  By good—only by good practice you will attain enlightenment.  That is more usual understanding.  But according to Dōgen, whatever we do, that is actually—actually &#8220;wisdom seeking for wisdom.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But because you discriminate it, you know, because you are involved in some ego—Peter said ego [laughs] outside of—outside of itself.  That is very good, you know, short and strong way of expressing ego, you know.  Outs- [partial word]—true ego is buddha-mind.  And ego outside of itself is projected ego, you know, of which you will discriminate, you know, good or bad.  &#8220;Good practice&#8221; or &#8220;bad practice,&#8221; you say.  But that, you know, good practice or bad practice or ego is not true ego.  Ego [laughs] outside of itself, you know, [is] projected ego.  And you discriminate about projected ego as if there is some ego—as if there is good ego or bad ego.  That is actually what we are doing.  But <span style="text-decoration: underline;">who</span> is doing that kind of—who project, you know, our ego objectively?  Somebody is doing that.  Someone is true ego which is always on your side, and which you cannot tell who he is or what he is.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>To realize this p- [partial word]—if you realize this point clearly, you know, we have originally buddha-nature, which is universal to everyone.  Ego on your side is the same, you know.  But only when it is projected there is difference between Ego 1 and Ego 2.  Do you understand this point?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  Could you give an example of Ego 1 and Ego 2?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs.]  Your ego and my ego, you know [laughs, laughter].  You know, I have—I have big eg- [partial word]—small ego, and you have big ego [laughter].  We say so, you know, because I project my ego as if my ego is very small, you know, and you are [not] bold enough, you know, to say &#8220;my ego is big&#8221; because you are student, you know.  Because I am teacher, you know, I must say my &#8220;ego is very small&#8221; [laughs, laughter].  But small ego or big ego is, you know, ego outside of itself.  Ego is here on my side, not there.  I said your eyes never can see themselves.  It is not possible.  That ego is, you know, true ego and big—big ego, maybe.  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  You said before that outflows have [are] in some sense related to desires.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  And it is said in Zen, a lot of times, that to do something fully—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  To do something fully.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  To do something fully—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  —when doing something, to do it fully—that that is, sort of, one of the goals—something that we should want to do, and that we should do.  Sometimes in our use of the word &#8220;passion,&#8221; we sometimes refer to the kind of action that is done fully, and rapidly, and without hesitation.  I wonder if you could, from a Zen point of view, explain the relationship between desire and passion?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Passion and desire and full?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  Maybe I could just ask the question what is passion?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Passion is, you know, when you are, you know, involved in or when you are caught by outside—things which looks like exist outside, you know, and to which your mind or strength or energy is directed.  That is mostly—most likely passion or attachment.  Actually, that kind of thing does not exist, you know, but you think as if something exist in that way and if possible, you know, hopefully forever [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And you—that hope already will create something, you know, some passion or some desire.  So what is necessary is—what we should do, or how we should act, or how we should do with things which looks like exist objectively is without, you know, being involved in—too much in the idea of being or substantial being.  You should do it naturally, and that activity should be activity which you do in that moment.  In that way, we continue our life that is perfect life.  Next question may be, you know—actually, you know, to act in that way is possible or not will be the next question.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>To answer this question, it is necessary for me to explain more on this point—on the other point, which is we say things does not exist forever, you know.  Things exist just right on this moment, in this moment—does not mean to acknowledge things or to do things just for this moment because each moment—when you say &#8220;this moment,&#8221; this moment has its own past and future.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So when you do it, you know, at that time if you do not try to make some excuse, or if you do not have preconceived idea, naturally you will accept—you will have feeling of past and future.  And you will see some difficulty in your future—in the future of that moment.  And you will see the past of that moment that is always included in each moment.  Actually you cannot do, you know, things just for that moment, forgetting all about its past and future.  Do you understand?  You cannot do so, bec- [partial word]—when you do something, you know, without thinking or intuitively, you have to acknowledge its own past and future.  And the past of this moment and past of yesterday may be the same, you know.  I th- [partial word]—I understand it may be the same, and it <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span> same maybe, but when we say &#8220;it is same&#8221; that is too far, you know.  There is some logical jump in it, because each moment—the quality of each moment can- [partial word]—no one can say it is always same.  Maybe different.  We should accept this point too.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And strictly speaking it is not same.  Because it is not same we have some chance to make some effort more or to improve our karma.  If it is exactly the same, there is no chance for us to improve our life.  So it is same, but it is not same.  There is two side in the truth.  So if we think past—my past is always same, even though we don&#8217;t know our future—my future, but past was always same.  That is not, you know, perfect understanding.  Future is—cannot be same, and past also cannot be same.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Isn&#8217;t it confusing if you use the word—if you use the words &#8220;past and future&#8221;?  To me it&#8217;s confusing, because to me the way you&#8217;re using them it all sounds like the present.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  All sound like present.  That&#8217;s right, you know.  You should understand in that way.  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Always</span> present, you know.  The different present.  Maybe same, you know.  There is some relationship—must be some relationship.  But strictly speaking, you know, it is accumulation of smallest particle of time—smallest particle of present.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  What do you mean when you said before, when you act in the present moment you consider the past and the future of that present moment.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Do you mean there is some kind of thing or idea or concept or something that you consider?  Or is it—or do you just consider the present moment?  I mean, it sounds like [4-6 words]—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Time doesn&#8217;t exist, you know.  Actually time doesn&#8217;t exist, you know, but things exist.  And things has some continuity, you know.  So we say time exist.  Instead of things we say time, you know.  Time include many things.  It is a kind of idea, not actual thing.  It, you know—instead of saying &#8220;many things,&#8221; we say &#8220;time.&#8221;  Time include everything.  When we say this moment, it include many things.  And the center of it is me, you know, right here.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Do we consider—I remember Dōgen talking somewhere about the fire—the wood burning becomes a log and becomes ashes.  But when it&#8217;s ashes we don&#8217;t—do we—are we supposed to remember that it was a log or do we just consider it ashes?  Or when it&#8217;s a log we don&#8217;t say, well [2-3 words]—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Log has its future and past.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Do we consider them?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Its own past and future.  But we cannot say log become ash [laughs].  It is so, you know.  Because, you know, here is log—wood, and here is ash, you know.  Usually you say &#8220;wood become ash,&#8221; you know, but ash has its own past and future, you know, and this is independent.  And ash has its own past and future.  Two different thing.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  In a practical way—I&#8217;m trying to be practical about it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  In practical way it is so [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  If I look at you and say you&#8217;re my teacher—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  If I look at you and I&#8217;m listening to your lecture trying to learn something, and if I say to myself, well in the past Rōshi has been a very good teacher and I&#8217;ve learned a lot—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Past Rōshi is not present Rōshi.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  —and now—and now—and now I&#8217;m looking at you, and if I remember that as the past, there&#8217;s something wrong in that.  I won&#8217;t say wrong but there&#8217;s a hang-up.  I&#8217;m attached or caught to some other idea.  But if I look at you, and I&#8217;m listening to you, and we&#8217;re talking, and I just accept the now, and I don&#8217;t know you as a teacher, I don’t know that you&#8217;re a Rōshi, I don&#8217;t know anything, then you&#8217;re just talking to me, I&#8217;m talking to you.  That includes everything without having to know anything else.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah, that is so. <em>[Sentence finished.  Tape turned over.]</em>  … understand something like me, you know.  But this is just—maybe looks like logic, you know.  But it is not just logic.  Because we are liable to be—fall in one-sided view, contin- [partial word]—idea of continuity or idea of discontinuity.  And actual being and continuous and discontinuous—that is true.  Like time is continuous and discontinuous.  I always say it is nine o&#8217;clock.  When we say it is nine o&#8217;clock, you know, when we say so, it is—idea of time is discontinuity, you know:  &#8220;nine o&#8217;clock.&#8221;  It is not going.  But when we say time, it is something continue from this moment to the other.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So if you are too much involved in this kind of thinking, you know, you will lose everything.  When we—I talk in this way, you know, more logically, you will not think in this way actually, but—but you are making this kind of, you know, mistake always when you think something objectively.  So the important thing is to sit and to go beyond this kind of thinking mind.  And when you act, when you do something without being involved in too much about objective world or scientific world or logical world, we should—you should do more intuitively, more freely, you know, without being involved in too much this kind of argument or too much idea of attachment.  Okay?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is what I mean.  That is what I mean.  &#8220;Just to sit&#8221; means don&#8217;t be involved in good—idea of good practice or bad practice, how long it will take before we attain enlightenment, or what is enlightenment.  You know, this kind of idea is result of thinking which is shadow of your own mind.  Your mind is always on your side, watching everything, understanding everything, who—which—who knows everything, and who is able to know everything.  And you should trust that, you know, kind of you.  And you should prac- [partial word]—trust your practice too.  And trust your intuition too.  Then you will not make not much mistake.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Why you make mistake is because you make some excuse always:  &#8220;Because I am Buddhist, we shouldn&#8217;t,&#8221; you know, &#8220;have any idea of good or bad,&#8221; [laughs] you know.  &#8220;Because I am Buddhist, Dōgen-zenji said live on this moment.  So whatever I do it doesn&#8217;t matter,&#8221; you know.  This is just excuse and just, you know, logic or argument, you know.  But actually because you don&#8217;t feel good when you do something wrong, you know, when you do something which is not real, which you don&#8217;t accept completely, you make some excuse.  That is why, maybe, many people study religion [laughs]—to make some excuse.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You know, in Japan in family system, you know, if someone—someone&#8217;s son get married with someone—some, you know, some lady, she is their family, and the old couple may go to temple everyday—not everyday, once a week or so.  And what the old couple will run from in temple is &#8220;You should do this kind of thing.  You shouldn&#8217;t do this kind of thing.&#8221;  And after and they come back, they apply the teaching for the, you know [laughs], for the wife of the son.  You know, I—&#8221;Today I went to temple, and priest told me so-and-so.  I think that is right [laughs].  He means that you are wrong [laughs].  What priest said was right, and what you do always is wrong.&#8221;  That doesn&#8217;t make any sense [laughs].  To authorize his, you know, egoistic idea, people may study something.  That is not how to study Buddhism.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We should trust our own, you know, feeling and our own intuition.  Maybe more physical one rather than—rather than some idea or some thought or some moral code or precepts.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  Sometimes I have been very aware of—that the moral faculty in me or the moral part of me.  I&#8217;ll be doing something and—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  —Doug once expressed this to me as kind of a very gray feeling, and a little voice in the back of your head saying, &#8220;Why you stupid&#8221; or—or this is—&#8221;What are you doing?  This is terrible.  You—you&#8217;re being very bad now.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  It&#8217;s sort of a—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Voice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  Yeah, a voice that when you&#8217;re walking into the kitchen toward the bread box [laughter] begins as very small.  Sometimes it&#8217;s very small [laughter].  Sometimes it gets so big that it&#8217;s actually screaming at you, &#8220;<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Stop</span>!&#8221;  [Laughter.]  But there you go doing it anyway.  It&#8217;s very difficult to sit through experiences like this with any composure [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No composure [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  I mean, except—except that the moral part of human being, because people have that thing in them that says, &#8220;This is right and this is wrong&#8221;—or I do.  Most people do.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Most people, you know—I don&#8217;t know what to say, but I don&#8217;t know why is—why do we have that kind of feeling.  But we know, you know, pretty well.  We can trust ourselves pretty well without any teacher [laughs] maybe.  But if you have teacher, you know, you will—you will not be fooled by anything, and you can put more faith in yourself—in your feeling.  This is very—this kind of way of thinking or way of study is very different from other religion maybe, which put more emphasis on some moral code, or something you should do, or you shouldn&#8217;t, or precepts.  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student J:</strong>  Could you say something about mindfulness?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mindfulness?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student J:</strong>  Mindfulness on breathing?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh, mindfulness—it is, you know—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student J:</strong>  Mindfulness on <span style="text-decoration: underline;">breathing</span>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Breathing—mostly breathing—you cannot have good breathing unless you have good posture.  And good breathing means, you know, to have, in zazen practice—to take inhaling and exhaling with your whole body and mind.  Do you understand?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student J:</strong>  Yes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  That is—that is good breathing, you know, so if you practice in this way, naturally your breathing will be deeper and deeper actually.  That is good breathing.  Mindfulness means to—to—to have—to obtain the oneness of mind and body.  If you have oneness of mind and body, or if your mind pervade all—whole—all parts of your body, that minds pervades, you know—that mind is at the same time buddha-mind which include everything.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student K:</strong>  Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student K:</strong>  If we find something that we feel helps us sit in that way, maybe with some it&#8217;s he breathes through the pores and in the skin.  Someone else practices not moving any muscles—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student K:</strong>  —some things that we experience—I experience something as being oneness of my mind and my body.  Should we sort of use what seems to us by our experimentation?  I mean, can we trust ourselves?  I say to myself—just afterwards I say, &#8220;Oh, that was my whole mind and body.  So that&#8217;s something very good to do, and I should practice that.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah, if you have that feeling that is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">it</span>, you know.  And you—if you—if you think your practice is not good, and if you don&#8217;t know why it is not good, you should think, you know, whether your mind is fully pervaded every part of your body or not.  That is so-called it <em>shikantaza</em>.  So <em>shikantaza</em>—background of <em>shikantaza</em> is the mind, which is always include everything, which is with all things which exist.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When I say &#8220;with all things,&#8221; [I mean] all things we <span style="text-decoration: underline;">see</span>, strictly speaking.  There must be many things which we don&#8217;t see—which we cannot see.  But we feel as if we are seeing everything, you know.  When we see the stars, you know, I—we feel as if we are seeing all the stars which exist.  Maybe actually we are seeing it.  But in that case, I don&#8217;t—I am not talking about the stars which we don&#8217;t see or which human being never reach.  What I mean is, you know, things Buddhist talk about is mind and materialistic and spiritualistic being.  We don&#8217;t talk about just material or just spiritual.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is one important point when you think, you know, but actually—or when you discuss something about Buddhism.  But in your everyday life it doesn&#8217;t make any sense.  Why I have to argue this kind of thing is, you know—sometime our mind goes too far, you know, unnecessarily goes too far.  So if we go too far this way, you know, we should go, you know, pretty far this way too.  That is why I have to say more, you know—I have to argue, you know.  Because you go this way too far, because you make too big mistake, so it is difficult to say, &#8220;That is mistake,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Why it is mistake is such-and-such,&#8221; you know.  So it is necessary to make everything clear.  But actually there is no need if you don&#8217;t go too far, you know.  If you just sit—if you are able to just sit without much—making much mistake, it is all right actually.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So it doesn&#8217;t—you may think what I&#8217;m saying doesn&#8217;t help you so much.  Without realizing you are go—you are already went too far away, you know, from reality.  So to pull you back to present, you know, I have to say many things, that&#8217;s all.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So what I just said is—we must—Buddhists never talk about something just material or just spiritual.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  How about in the sense of practicing on our bodies—you know, forgetting about—or rather practicing in a just-material way?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  Is that something Buddhists don&#8217;t do—we shouldn&#8217;t do?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.  We don&#8217;t do that, you know.  &#8220;Just material&#8221; is already wrong.  The one side is missing.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  If I try and sit very still, without moving at all—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  —and counting my breath—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  —and disregarding whether or not my mind is moving—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  —just concentrating on my body not moving—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  —what mistake am I making?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh, what mistake you are making at that time?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  Am I neglecting something by concentrating just on the body—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  —if I forget?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah, that mistake will be, you know, if you think, &#8220;This is—<span style="text-decoration: underline;">this is</span> zazen,&#8221; you know, &#8220;Zazen should be like this.&#8221;  If you say so—if you understand in that way, that is mistake.  But if you just do that, you know, without much—without authorizing your practice too much, you know, just sit.  Then there&#8217;s no mistake there.  Or if you think, you know, &#8220;I&#8217;m just—what I can do is just to sit.  I don&#8217;t understand his lecture [laughs].  This is,&#8221; you know, &#8220;all what I can.  So I may sit in this way.&#8221;  If you, you know, think in that way, that is also a mistake.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So what you should do is—with some understanding of Buddhist teaching and what is reality and what is real practice, you should sit.  Then you have actually no—not much things to think.  Just to sit is enough.  Mistake will happen if you go too far, forgetting what you are doing right now.  When you eat you should eat, you know.  When you sleep you should sleep.  When you sit you should sit.  But the true understanding of it is—you should understand it in—from various viewpoint.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student M [Peter Schneider]:</strong>  Rōshi, suppose someone says to us—you keep saying just to sit as if it were something that everyone does, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  They could say &#8220;just to sit&#8221;—that&#8217;s going much too far.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  That&#8217;s some sort of extreme, that&#8217;s some sort of abnormal behavior.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Just to sit?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  Yeah, &#8220;that&#8217;s not natural,&#8221; they would say.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  Like suppose—I mean, like, if you&#8217;re from America, and you&#8217;re from somewhere very far away from California—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  If they see a Zen Center student sitting, they think that&#8217;s incredibly unnatural.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  They would say that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">that</span> balance is off, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  Like, &#8220;just to sit&#8221;—that&#8217;s on the other side of one dualism, of being very active.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  So to keep saying &#8220;just to sit,&#8221; that&#8217;s like for them saying—that&#8217;s like saying &#8220;be very passive.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  They say that&#8217;s not the American way [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  American way, you know [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong>  No, what I&#8217;m trying to say is that—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  What is Zen, you know, what is American way, you know?  That&#8217;s, you know, just argument, you know.  Doesn&#8217;t much make sense.  To me it is very natural, and to them it is not natural [laughs], you know.  What is natural?  So that is something which we cannot decide:  which is natural or which is not natural.  Just, you know, there is some mistake.  Why I must say this kind of long talk is because we liable—we are liable to stick to one side.  The—for Buddhist, the two major heresy is understanding of continuity and understanding of discontinuity.  This is two major fault we make by thinking or by understanding—intellectual understanding.  So intellectual understand cannot include this kind of opposite idea in one statement or in one practice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, you know, just to sit—that is why I have to explain what does it mean by &#8220;just to sit.&#8221;  When we say &#8220;just to sit,&#8221; it include more, you know, actually.  But why I don&#8217;t say you can move, you know [laughs], is you may think &#8220;just to sit&#8221; means whatever you do that is &#8220;just to sit,&#8221; and you will have completely different understanding of it.  When I say &#8220;just to sit,&#8221; you know, you should accept sitting posture as long as you practice zazen.  When you eat you should eat, you know.  We cannot do two things together.  So we should do things most naturally as you can do.  If we practice our way by group, you know, we cannot do different things.  So when you sit you should sit.  And you should be able to accept that.  That is what I mean by &#8220;just to sit.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Most natural thing, you know—natural things is—most natural things has very strict rule in it, you know, or else you cannot be natural.  When you—even though you think this is natural, but it may be most unnatural thing, you know, because you cannot survive so long in that way.  Something wrong with the idea of naturalness.  So naturalness itself has, you know—the other side of naturalness is very strict—has very strict sense of controlling things.  Like, you know, you manage a ship, you know, or a car.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student N:</strong>  The word &#8220;natural&#8221; comes from nature, and nature is completely strict in that it does the same thing all of the time.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student N:</strong>  The leaves fall off the tree, and the time the sun rises and sets.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student N:</strong>  So to be natural is really, then, to be completely in form.  &#8220;Form is form,&#8221; and completely in nature—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Aha, yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student N:</strong>  That&#8217;s what &#8220;naturally&#8221; means.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  I see.  Yeah.  That is, you know—so naturalness has, you know, two side:  Looks like [sounds like he makes a gesture, laughs].  And when you do something like this, there&#8217;s some reason.  And that reason has some rules behind it.  But we, you know, unnecessarily because of our thinking, you know, we push ourself—selves unnatural way.  That is actually what human being does, you know, which—and which plants and animal doesn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Almost time.  One more question, maybe?  No question?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  Rōshi, I&#8217;m firewatch tonight, and I was thinking about what Craig [Student I] was talking about—the bread box [laughter].  Craig was talking about this thing—going into the kitchen to the bread box.  Well, that&#8217;s what I always do when I&#8217;m firewatch [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  I don&#8217;t understand what you said.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  The bread box is in the kitchen where they put the leftover slices of bread from lunch.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  And—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  And—that is bread box.  Okay.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  Pardon?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Okay.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  Yes.  And I wanted some advice from you about how to handle that sort of situation [laughs, laughter].  I know—I guess we&#8217;re not supposed to eat between meals [laughter], but I have my heart set—all week I&#8217;ve been thinking [laughter] that I&#8217;m going to be the only one awake, and I can go in there and have my slice [?] [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student P:</strong>  Maybe not the only one!  [Loud laughter.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  How—if <span style="text-decoration: underline;">you</span> were firewatch [laughter], how would you handle yourself [laughter]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  You know, you should feel, you know, as if you are great Zen master [laughing, laughter].  &#8220;Oh, this is bread box&#8221; [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  I&#8217;m going on vacation [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Actually, you don&#8217;t—you don&#8217;t, you know—when you are student you <span style="text-decoration: underline;">eat</span>, you know.  When you become a teacher you <span style="text-decoration: underline;">don&#8217;t</span>.  Or when you become <em>jisha</em><a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a><em>  </em>you don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  Don&#8217;t <span style="text-decoration: underline;">what</span>?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Don&#8217;t <span style="text-decoration: underline;">eat</span> [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  I thought that&#8217;s what you would say [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  When you&#8217;re just beginner or just, you know, student, you may—I think you will do it.  That is naturalness [laughs, laughter].  When I was a, you know, little disciple of the—of my master&#8217;s temple, I ate many things, and I steal many things from my master.  But when I became a temple priest, you know—you know, naturally I didn&#8217;t [laughs].  Not because I [laughs, laughter]—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student P:</strong>  Look how much you brought for all of us to [1 word] [laughter]—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  How—how did you feel?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student O:</strong>  I felt like a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">great</span> Zen master [laughs, loud laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Say it to yourself, &#8220;I am a—the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">best</span> student at Tassajara, and my future will be a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">great</span> Zen master.&#8221;  [Laughs, laughter.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>_________________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape transcribed by Adam Tinkham and Bill Redican (3/19/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  <em>innen</em> (Jap.):  &#8220;<em>In</em> is the inner and direct cause by which the result occurs, while <em>en</em> means the external and indirect one.  According to the Buddhist doctrine, every action occurs in the harmony of both <em>in</em> and <em>en</em>&#8221; (Daitō Shuppansha, <em>Japanese-English Buddhist Dictionary</em>, 1965, pp. 129-130).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  <em>anuttara-samyak-sambodhi</em> (San.):  the Buddha&#8217;s or the highest enlightenment or wisdom.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  <em>issai-shu-chi</em> (Jap.):  one of the three types of wisdom; the wisdom of the Buddha.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [4]  <em>jisha</em> (Jap.):  attendant to a priest.</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1062</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-11-1-t.mp3" length="12344999" type="audio/mpeg" />
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/69-11-11-2-t.mp3" length="4049855" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>November 9th, 1969 &#8211; Interview</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1057</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1057#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Nov 1969 22:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi INTERVIEW WITH PETER SCHNEIDER Sunday, November 9, 1969  Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-09 part 1  Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-09 part 2 [Tape starts with background group chatter.  Then the mike is set up, and more group chatter follows.  Then Peter Schneider asks Suzuki-rōshi a question.]   Peter Schneider:  I would [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi </strong></p>
<p><strong>INTERVIEW WITH PETER SCHNEIDER </strong></p>
<p><strong>Sunday, November 9, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-09-1-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-09 part 1</a></strong></p>
<p><strong> <a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-09-2-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-09 part 2</a></strong></p>
<p><em>[Tape starts with background group chatter.  Then the mike is set up, and more group chatter follows.  Then Peter Schneider asks Suzuki-rōshi a question.]</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><strong>Peter Schneider:</strong>  I would like to ask Rōshi a question for the <em>Wind Bell</em> that I was going to type—tape just with him, but I think it&#8217;s a—would interest you, so—.  It will appear in the next <em>Wind Bell</em>.<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>   And the question is to have Rōshi talk about Mrs. [Miss] Ransom.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.  [Laughter.]  I must tell you she was my old, old girlfriend [loud laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter Schneider:</strong>  I&#8217;ll have some water.  [Loud laughter.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Almost, but not quite [laughter].  When I was young, even from a boy, I couldn&#8217;t [wasn't] satisfied with Buddhist life, you know, because of many reasons.  So I wanted to—to be a good teacher when I was very young, and I wanted to [1-2 words unclear] people who—who did not priest—did not respect priests so much.  But I—at that time, my ambition may be directed to wrong direction [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But anyway, I made up my mind to leave my home and to study to practice under strict teacher.  So I went to my master&#8217;s temple.  And my master [Gyokujun So-on] was a disciple of my father.<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>   And my father, when he was young, [was] very strict with his disciples.  And my master was one of the—his—my father&#8217;s disciple who [was] raised up in very, very strict way.  And he was—my master was always talking about my father&#8217;s strictness with him.  And I—that was very, you know—that was hardest situation for me to accept, you know.  My master almost blaming of my father.  &#8220;Your father,&#8221; [tapping repeatedly] you know, &#8220;raised me in this way.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  That was very hard to—to listen to.  Anyway, this is not what I want to talk [about].  But—</p>
<p><span id="more-1057"></span></p>
<p>So naturally, this kind of spirit I have all the way maybe I became—until maybe thirty or more.  After my master&#8217;s death, I have not much feeling.  That kind of feeling changed into the—into opposite way, and I became very much—I missed my master very much.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So when I was—when I was at school—college, I studied English pretty hard to go to abroad [laughs].  I have no idea of America or Hawai&#8217;i or—anyway, if I am going to some country, I thought I have to speak English.  And I studied English pretty hard when I was a student.  And when I was at Komazawa University, Miss Ransom was teacher of conversation.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Once a week, we—Miss Ransom taught us conversation.  And after I finished her class I attended English course lecture.  And meantime, Miss Ransom found me and asked me to be—to help her in shopping, or when some Japanese come, or when she had student—her private students.  Of course, I couldn&#8217;t help her so well, but I tried pretty hard.  And at last she asked me to stay [at] her home with two more students who were helping her in shopping and conversation with Japanese people.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But the other students, Kundo and—and I don&#8217;t know the—I forgot one more student&#8217;s name—Kundo was student of Komazawa.<a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>  And one more student is from Bundikadaima before that school was normal school—normal high school.  And that school changed their system and became a university.  And the other students were studying English—English course students.  And both Kundo and that student left Miss Ransom&#8217;s home.  I was only one student who helped her.  And meantime I—there were many interesting stories between Mrs. [Miss] Ransom and I.  Don&#8217;t be so inquisitive [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>No, no, no.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  Is it alcoholic?  [S.R. may have picked up a cup of water.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>She was—before she come to Japan, she was a tutor of last emperor of China, Sentō—Emperor Sentō,<a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>  Emperor of Manchuria.  And at that time, Japan became more and more ambitious, and trying to [for] some chance to fight with that northern part of China.  Emperor Sentō&#8217;s capitol is in—I don&#8217;t know what is the name of the city right now.  At that time it was Choshun.<a title="" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>   And when he—the Emperor was there, he—she was a tutor of the Emperor.  And she is a daughter of very—I don&#8217;t know who he is, but [he was] very famous naval general [admiral].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>She was a [had a] very strict character, and at the same time she complained always about Japanese people:  at school what kind of things happened, and at the car what kinds of things happened.  She was always complained about Japan.  I was only person who listened to her complain [laughter].  But I have also many complaint with her.  For an instance, she had a beautiful Buddha—sitting Buddha as big as this which was given to her by the Emperor.  But she put—it was all right for her to put it in <em>tokonoma—</em>on <em>tokonoma</em>, but she put her shoes besides the Buddha [laughs, laughter].  That was <em>tokonoma</em>, you see.  <em>Tokonoma</em> is a place where we put some antique, or scroll, or some valuable things:  object of worship, or something like that.  But she used to put her shoes as soon as she come back from school, you know.  That was very, you know, embarrassing to me.  But I didn&#8217;t say anything, you know, but I offered, you know, tea every morning with small cup like this, you know, putting it on—in front of Buddha, and offered tea every morning [laughs].  She started to [be] amused about me, and—but she didn&#8217;t ask anything.  And I didn&#8217;t say anything about it or about her shoes [laughs, laughter].  Maybe this kind of, you know, silent cold war [laughs, laughter] last maybe for two–three weeks, and I was waiting for a chance to start hot war [laughs, laughter], as my English was not so good, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan Welch:</strong>  How about the matches, Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan Welch:</strong>  The matches.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  So I have to study pretty hard, you know, preparing for the polishing the weapon, you know, to speak.  And I, you know, studied some important word to speak about it [laughs, laughter].  And when one of her friend visited her, she—they were talking about my funny, you know—things, you know, about me.  &#8220;She is—he is very strange Buddhist, offering tea [laughs] for the wooden figure, sometime offering,&#8221; you know, &#8220;incense.&#8221;  They were talking about it.  I could understand what they were talking about.  And he started, you know—his friend started to put matches, you know, in Buddha&#8217;s <em>mudrā</em> [loud laughter].  And he left, you know, sometime matches [and] sometime, you know, in—cigarette [laughter] in incense holder.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  Oh, no.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Still, hot war didn&#8217;t start.  And at last, you know, I don&#8217;t know how the hot war started, but she asked me about, you know, about the figure— Buddha&#8217;s figure.  [S]he thought Buddhism is a kind of idol worship.  So I explained it, you know.  It was very difficult, but I could manage to explain why we worship wooden image or Buddha or what is the real Buddha—maybe about Dharmakāya, Samboghakāya, or Nirmānakāya Buddha.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>She was rather amazed, you know [laughs].  She didn&#8217;t know Buddhism is so profound.  And she started to become interested in Buddhism.  And soon she converted to Buddhism.  And she start to study Buddhism, because if she want to study Buddhism, there were many professors, and some professors could speak some English.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So [1-2 words] she had—in one year, I think, she had a pretty good understanding of Buddhism.  And one day she took me to the downtown to buy some incense and some incense bowl, and she started to offer it.  I felt very good.  At the same time, I could have some confidence in our teaching, in Buddhism.  And in that way, I thought I had a kind of confidence in—not &#8220;propagate,&#8221; but—in making them—making Caucasian people to understand Buddhism.  Or I thought for Caucasian, Buddhism—Buddha&#8217;s teaching may be more suitable than [for] Japanese, you know.  You know, when—for Japanese to study Buddhism in its true sense is pretty difficult because of the wrong tradition or misunderstanding of Buddhism.  It is difficult to change their misunderstanding once they have that kind of wrong idea of Buddhism.  But for Caucasian who doesn&#8217;t know anything about Buddhism, like we paint in [on] white paper, it is much easier to give right understanding of true Buddhism.  I think that is the, you know, that kind of experience I had with Miss Ransom resulted in my coming to America, I think.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And as soon as I finished my schooling, I asked my teacher—my master,<a title="" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>  to go to America or Hawai&#8217;i or some—to go to anywhere abroad.  But he became furious [laughs], and she [he] wouldn&#8217;t allow me to go.  So I couldn&#8217;t come to America.  And I gave up my notion of coming to America for a long, long time until I forget all about it.  But ten years ago, at last I came to America.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And five years—fifteen years ago,<a title="" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>  actually, I had chance to come to America.  But because I didn&#8217;t finish fixing our main building [at Rinso-in], which was my duty left by my master, so I thought I have to finish his order first, so I didn&#8217;t come to America at that time.  And maybe five or six years later I had second chance to come to America, and I decided to come to America.<a title="" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>   It was pretty hard to come, but anyway I managed to come to America.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>After I finished my schooling, I went to Eihei-ji.  And Miss Ransom came to Eihei-ji and stayed for one month at Eihei-ji, and sitting there, and practicing pretty well.  And when I went to—two years after, I went to Kasuisai monastery.<a title="" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>   At that time, she came to Kasuisai and stayed for one month also.  And she—and then she went to China again:  Tientsin—Tensin—Ten?—Tientsin, yeah, near Peking.  And she went to England.  Once in a while I wrote to her, and she wrote to me, but since I came to America I haven&#8217;t written so often.  She wanted to write something about me, you know:  various experience we had between us, you know.  And she asked me to give some date or event.  But that is too much, you know, so since then I didn&#8217;t write to her, you know, because it was too much.  Whenever I write to her she asked me many things, you know, which is almost impossible to write her back.  So I didn&#8217;t.  And, you know, she may be very angry.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time [Grahame] Petchey was in England, and he started—he started Zen group at her home, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter Schneider:</strong>  Her home!  I didn&#8217;t know that.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs.]  So whenever Petchey went to her home, she [he] was the one who listened to her complaint [laughs, laughter].  So I—I know her very well, you know.  Even though she complains, it doesn&#8217;t mean so bad.  So, you know, I thought it may be all right.  But that was my mistake, you know.  She passed away last year, before I write to her.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I trusted her very much, and he—she trusted me so much.  So whether I write to her or I don&#8217;t doesn&#8217;t make much difference, I thought, but I don&#8217;t know.  As long as she is alive it is all right.  But now, I think, I regret a little bit about my not writing to her.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Anyway, I think she was a good Buddhist.  After she went to Tientsin, she sent me a picture of same Buddha, you know, who get into trouble between us, you know.  And she made—she enshrined the Buddha in the wall where there is some—something like big hole in the wall like this [gestures], you know, and she said she is offering incense every day [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan Welch:</strong>  What happened to the shoes, Rōshi?  Did she ever take them off?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes, of course [laughter].  And I taught her how to clean up <em>tokonoma</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>One day she told me to buy—to get some daffodil bulb, you know.  I bought pretty big one for her, but she didn&#8217;t [wasn't] satisfied with them.  &#8220;Oh, this is too small.  Get me some big ones,&#8221; you know.  I tried, you know, to find <span style="text-decoration: underline;">best</span> daffodils in Tōkyō, at least in Shibuya district.  I visited several florists, and I got the largest bulb we can get—I can get.  But she didn&#8217;t [wasn't] satisfied with it.  So she makes me very angry [laughs].  So I bought some onion [laughing, ongoing loud laughter]—buy.  &#8220;Here, I got <span style="text-decoration: underline;">very</span> big one.  Here they are.&#8221;  And I left, you know, her room.  But I was careful, you know, watching her—what did happen.  She opened it and saw the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">big</span> bulbs, you know.  &#8220;Oh, this is very good!&#8221; she said.  I felt very good, [but] at the same time scared of him [her], so I ran away from the room, you know—from outside of the room.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And at last—she didn&#8217;t like onion, you know, at all.  Of course, that is onion so it smells [laughter].  &#8220;Oh!  This is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">onion</span>!&#8221; she shouted, and looking around for me.  But I wasn&#8217;t there [laughter].  But I couldn&#8217;t help burst into laughter—a big laughter, so she found out—she found me out.  With onion in her hand, she started to chase after me.  She was a big, tall, girl [?], you know.  So I went to upstairs, the second floor, and from the second floor to the roof.  Something—that kind of thing happens pretty many times.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I had to come back [to] her home before ten o&#8217;clock.  But it was rather difficult, you know, to come back before ten always.  So when I was late, you know, I—I know how to open the doors.  You know, Japanese door is sliding doors.  The lock is between two door, you know.  Lock is go <span style="text-decoration: underline;">this</span> way, you know, to—like a nail driving down, a nail for two doors.  So it is not possible to, you know, open this way, but you—if you lift <span style="text-decoration: underline;">two</span> doors [laughter], it is quite easy to take out two doors [laughter].  And I sneaked into the—my bedroom and slept.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And at last she found me, you know, what I was doing.  And she, you know, didn&#8217;t trust me any more [laughs], and she didn&#8217;t trust the safety of the Japanese building any more.  And she determined to move out from that—from that house, you know.  And I was told to find out some good safe building, which was almost impossible, you know.  Almost all the buildings are Japanese buildings.  If it is Western building, we have to pay a lot of money.  So I gave up to find out that kind of safe building.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But it was good for me to go out with some reason to find—finding out some good apartment.  And sometime I went to barber shop, or sometime I visited my friends, you know, instead of finding out some good apartment.  And at last I decided to ask some good, old carpenter to explain, you know, how safe Japanese building are from thieves and how to fix the lock you know, so that no one can get in.  And I—we could convince her not to move out.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>As she was a English woman, she is—she doesn&#8217;t—even though rotten old knife, she wouldn&#8217;t throw them away.  And she—sometime she asked me to get [them] polished.  But in Japan no one can polish any knife for anyone, you know.  If she has carpenters or gardeners, she may—he may do it, but she wanted me to get [it] polished immediately.  That was a big problem for me.  And—and she said, &#8220;In England,&#8221; you know, &#8220;if you go to a department store we can get them polished up immediately.  So go to Mitsukoshi and ask to get [it] polished.&#8221;  Her idea was ridiculous for Japanese people, you know, to polish.  It was pretty beautiful, good knife.  But even so, no one can polish it.  &#8220;Oh, this is old,&#8221; Japanese store may say.  &#8220;This is very old.  Why don&#8217;t you get new one?&#8221;  You know, that is what they may say.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When—do you know Japanese <em>ofuro</em>?  When the, you know, cover of the <em>ofuro</em> will easily be get rotten, so she asked me to get lid only.  But that was also difficult, you know.  If I—unless we buy whole thing, they wouldn&#8217;t sell the wooden <em>ofuro</em>—bathtub—wooden bathtub.  I think English way may be something quite different from American way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s all [laughter].  Nothing more than this.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  She was the first—Miss Ransom was your first Westerner you helped to convert to Buddhism?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Who was the second person—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Second?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  —after her?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  —after her.  Maybe Jean Ross or some old students of Zen Center.  Since then I had—until I come to America, I had no chance to see any Caucasian or any foreigners—<em>gaijin</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  How did you get an idea to teach Caucasian people long time before you&#8217;d met any Caucasian students?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  How?  Just, you know, I visited her home when it is very hot, just because I want to have a—some cold drink, I visited her [laughs].  It was <span style="text-decoration: underline;">so</span> hot, you know.  <em>[Sentence finished.  Tape turned over.]  </em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>… without she will give us something, you know, some drink or watermelon or something like that.  She gave me a big, you know, watermelon, cutting in two, and putting some sugar in it, and with big spoon she offered half [the] melon, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">big</span> one.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter Schneider:</strong>  And you determined to come to America [loud laughter]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Hey, it&#8217;s the watermelon, man.  That&#8217;s what it is.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh, maybe so because of watermelon.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  &#8220;Watermelon Zen.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  &#8220;Watermelon Zen.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan Welch:</strong>  If I remember right, Rōshi, there was another Zen master in Kyoto who got caught by a watermelon [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  What&#8217;s that story, Dan?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Dan, don&#8217;t you—it may be good idea to send a picture of watermelon, you know—picture of Zen Center student eating watermelon [laughs, laughter].  Some Zen teacher like me may come [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan:</strong>  Publish it in the <em>Dai-hōrin. </em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  She was very tall, maybe as tall as [Grahame] Petchey, you know.  Very tall girl.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Petchey&#8217;s about 6&#8242;-2&#8243;, I think.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs, laughter throughout paragraph.]  She used to put white, big hat like this, and she was very tall, and I was very small.  When we go to shopping, I have to almost <span style="text-decoration: underline;">run</span>.  Because she had no one to talk, you know, to talk with, and as soon as she come back from school, she start to talk with me in fireplace.  So I was always studying in fireplace—in the corner of fireplace.  I couldn&#8217;t study anything, you know.  I couldn&#8217;t have any study—any homework, so I decided to buy big, big screen.  I told her for Japanese it is necessary to use, you know, big screen.  So she bought it for me, and so I was very pleased—just to prevent, you know, her talk.  But she was <span style="text-decoration: underline;">so</span> tall!  Taller than screen—watching down.  Didn&#8217;t work at all.  I gave up.  Very big.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Another professor, Sugioka,<a title="" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>  would visited our home many times—maybe twice a week or weekend.  She was—she—he is—according to her, he is a big scholar in English, you know.  He knows more vocabulary—he has more vocabulary than Miss Ransom herself, she said.  And he was—she was very much proud of him.  But he was also very short—as short as me, you know.  I don&#8217;t know why she liked so short people [laughter].  The man who translated Uchiyama-rōshi&#8217;s<a title="" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>  book, you know, small book.<a title="" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>   Someone said it was not so good translation.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Which book is that, Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Small.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Uchiyama-rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  Palms.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  With the hands?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.  With hands.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Oh.  Why did you leave her?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Why did you leave her—did you leave her?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Because I, you know, because I have to finish my thesis.  So five—six months before I finish my schooling, I left her.  And she went to Tientsin—went back to China again.  She was a good friend of Premiere Yoshida.<a title="" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a>   She is—he is a famous premiere who signed the treaty after the war—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Russian war [of 1905] or—?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  —treaty of—at San Francisco, you know, treaty of complete surrender.  He is the premiere who signed.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan:</strong>  Rōshi, what did you write your thesis in?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan:</strong>  Rōshi, what did you write your thesis about?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  About <em>Shōbōgenzō</em>.  Study of <em>Shōbōgenzō</em>, focusing on &#8220;Raihai-tokuzui&#8221;—the chapter of the meaning of bow.<a title="" href="#_ftn14">[14]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  What?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  &#8221;Vow&#8221; or &#8220;bow&#8221;?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Bow?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Bow.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Bow.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Is that because your master bowed so much?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Maybe so.  I didn&#8217;t notice it.  Maybe so.  I was the last one who submit my thesis to the office [laughter], because I was too busy, you know.  Most student finish his d- [partial word]—unit, you know.  Maybe most students leave three or four units for last year, but I had twelve—I had twelve units more to go.  So I was very busy in writing thesis and finishing twelve units.  That was why I bought screen, but it didn&#8217;t work [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  Rōshi, could you tell us something of what you wrote your thesis on?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  Could you tell us something about your thesis?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Study of <em>Shōbōgenzō</em>, focusing on the fascicle of bow.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  Could you tell us what you wrote?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Too long.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  In—in a capsule?  In [laughter]—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Essence?  You have to bow anyway [laughter].  That is why you have to bow nine times, you know, maybe.  My thesis was very good, you know, but my oral question was not so good, you know, because I didn&#8217;t study so much.  Some other questions?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  Rōshi?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  A few years ago, at a lecture at that—in the basement of that big church—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  —that big church downtown on [2-3 words unclear], you were giving a lecture—no, Dick was talking, and you were just listening.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  And you had your hands—your <em>mudrā</em> upside down.  The right—the right hand on top of the left hand.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  And then sometimes—and then I was sitting right in the front row, and I was staring at your hands.  And you weren&#8217;t looking at <span style="text-decoration: underline;">me</span>, I don&#8217;t think, but you fixed them, and you put the left back on top of the right.  But then you&#8217;d be listening to Dick, and your right would go back on top [laughter].  And I—and I thought that something was strange was going on.  And I looked real hard, and you put your sleeves over your hands [laughter].  My question is, what were you up to [laughter]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  That was your study [story?], then.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  What?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  &#8220;That was your study, then.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Usually this is—I have not much feeling on this, so—.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Why not?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Because I cut my finger from here to here.  Sometime I don&#8217;t feel so good, you know, and I do like this [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Oh.  He—he—he—he&#8217;s doing this.  See?  Like this, though.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  You know, this finger.  So if I don&#8217;t feel so good, I do like this and go back to the <em>mudrā</em> like [gesture].  Sometime I am doing like this one.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Rōshi, do you still hear from some of your master&#8217;s disciples, or other Zen masters?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Excuse me?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Some of—some of your master&#8217;s disciples—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Who were studying with you.  Do you still hear from them?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  My younger, you know, brother in dharma<a title="" href="#_ftn15">[15]</a>  was taking care of—once in a while after I left Rinso-in came to my temple and helped my boy [Hoitsu-rōshi] or a priest who was there always.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  There was a fire in your temple?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Excuse me?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  I didn&#8217;t quite understand.  There was a fire there?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No, no.  When you know, after I left my temple, you know, there must be some qualified, you know, teacher in my temple [laughs, laughter].  Someone like me must be there.  So my brother in dharma was formerly or officially responsible for my temple, but actually someone else was always there.  But another—my elder brother in dharma<a title="" href="#_ftn16">[16]</a>  is now in the temple which I enter for the first—after I finish my schooling—Zoun-in.<a title="" href="#_ftn17">[17]</a>   And then as soon as my master passed away, I took over my master&#8217;s temple and my elder brother, you know, took over my place.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So still we have three dharma—brother in dharma.  And one is now—I don&#8217;t know what he is doing.  He is not priest anymore.  And we—I was actually the youngest one.  At that time there were four more disciples, and I—I was the youngest one.  And four disciples run away from my master because he was too strict.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Could—could you give us some example of his strictness—of what he did that was so strict?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs.]  You know, he is very, you know, unique character.  And he would sit in the corner of dark room, and when someone enter his room he stares at him like this and without stopping eating [laughter].  Most people [were] scared of him very much.  Just to look at him is good enough.  Before he say something he would strike me—strike us—<em>bam!  </em>[Laughter.]  A little like Tatsugami-rōshi also does.  For Tatsugami-rōshi, there is no need to speak English.  His hand will speak fluently [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  They&#8217;ll laugh now—[laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  And he&#8217;s pretty humorous, you know, sometime—very much humorous.  And he was very good friend of us in some way.  For an instance, when we came back from village after finishing memorial service for our members, three of our—three or four [of] our disciples—his disciples were with him, and we are coming back to my temple.  When we came to dark, you know, dark slope, you know, he told us to take off—oh—told us to go ahead, you know.  &#8220;As you boys [are] wearing <em>tabi</em>,<a title="" href="#_ftn18">[18]</a>  so may be better for you to go first.  I will—because I have no <em>tabi</em>, I will follow you,&#8221; he said.  So we, you know, went back ahead of him.  As soon as we arrive at our temple, he told us to sit in front of him.  &#8220;You boys sit here and listen to me.  When I don&#8217;t wear <em>tabi</em>, why did you wear <em>tabi</em>?&#8221;  That was his, you know, question.  &#8220;Why did you wear <em>tabi</em>?  When I don&#8217;t wear—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  What—what is <em>turby</em>?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Students:</strong>  <em>Tabi.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Socks.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Oh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student J:</strong>  White socks.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  &#8220;Moreover,&#8221; you know, &#8220;when I told you,&#8221; you know, &#8220;to go ahead, you four boys went ahead of me without noticing that I have no <em>tabi</em>.  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">How about that</span>?  [Thumps several times.]  You goose!&#8221; you know.  &#8220;You foolish boys!&#8221;  He was <span style="text-decoration: underline;">very</span> mad at us.  You know, at that time I took him very seriously, but I think—now I think—I think apparently he was teasing us, you know.  He was playing game with us.  He was enjoying, you know, our innocence [laughter].  &#8220;Sit here,&#8221; and we four boys sit [laughter].  We didn&#8217;t know what will go on, you know.  No one could figure out what is—what was wrong with us [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>[One day] when he was not at temple, one chicken died [laughs, laughter throughout].  So we decided to eat it, taking off all the feathers.  But it was very difficult to cut, you know, with blunt temple knife.  Very difficult.  So we ate only one leg.  And rest of the chicken we buried.  [We recited?] small, you know, sūtra.  Unfortunately, next morning my master found it, you know, when he was weeding.  But he didn&#8217;t tell anything, you know.  That was the day before Obon festival.  And after we, you know, prepared altar for the various soul, we had dinner [?].  Tomorrow is, you know—oh, that was August 13<sup>th</sup> when we have Obon festival.  And [at] breakfast time he told us, &#8220;I had a funny—very funny dream last night.  One-legged hen came to me—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  &#8220;One-legged hen said to me—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  &#8220;One-legged hen came to me and said, &#8216;It—the altar is too high for me.  So please move it lower.&#8217;  And the hen asked me, &#8216;Do you have some good idea?&#8217; he asked us.  All of us.  All of us.&#8221;  We couldn&#8217;t see [look at?] him either.  What he meant by that?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Obon festival is the festival for all spirits.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan Welch:</strong>  The <span style="text-decoration: underline;">dead</span> spirits.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  The <span style="text-decoration: underline;">dead</span> spirits.  The one—one-legged hen—hen came to the altar, but he couldn&#8217;t climb up.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student K:</strong>  The spirit of one dead hen, or—?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  One-<span style="text-decoration: underline;">legged</span> hen.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  One-legged hen, because we ate, you know, one leg and buried, you know, the hen around the tree.  And my master found out, unfortunately.  And he—he didn&#8217;t say anything at that time.  It was the day we have Obon festival.  And after—when we have breakfast, &#8220;I had a very funny dream last night.&#8221;  [Laughter.]  We were listening to him.  One day [the hen] came [to him], he said, so—[laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Where did the chickens come from?  [Laughter.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  We were raising them.  We were [4-8 words unclear], and unfortunately one of them died.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:  </strong>They were at the temple?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  So we ate [laughter] one only.  Because it is too difficult to cook it—cut it, so we gave up and buried it, you know, in the garden.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  So what did he say when you were like this, Rōshi?  [Probably gesturing.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  I don&#8217;t know.  I don&#8217;t remember, anyway, you know.  We have no words.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  Was that all he ever said about it?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student L:</strong>  Was that all he ever said about it?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Dan Welch:</strong>  Isn&#8217;t that enough?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  That&#8217;s enough, you know.  [Laughter.]  &#8220;Do you have some idea to help him?&#8221;—that was what he said.  We are not so alert students anyway—disciple, you know, because we have no words for him.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student M:</strong>  Is he the one that kept some <em>yokan</em> [?]<a title="" href="#_ftn19">[19]</a>  up on a very high shelf?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.  He is the—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student M:</strong>  Will you tell us about that?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Ohh.  Whenever he had something—some special thing, you know, for guest, he would keep it in high place where we cannot reach, you know.  But, you know [laughs and laughter throughout paragraph], we know how to take it, you know.  So almost all the time, I—we took it down and cut a little bit corner of it—slice by slice we cut.  And—and then, looking at it, when we feel—anyway he will find out, so we took [?] all of them.  That is what we would do, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>One day, you know, it was too high for us to reach [laughter throughout paragraph].  So my—our eldest disciple asked me, who is the smallest one, to reach it.  And he said, &#8220;I will carry you on my shoulders.  Then you can reach for that.&#8221;  So I, you know—he carried me on his shoulder.  And it was still—we were not still high enough.  So I told him, &#8220;A little bit more.&#8221;  So he stood on his toe, you know, like this, and he lost balance.  He throw me out on the kettle—boiling kettle.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  Oh God.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  I got big, you know, burned here.  Still I have some, you know, mark here.  But I couldn&#8217;t say anything about it [laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So when mealtime come, so I, you know, enduring my pain, I sit in my seat.  And we start—I started to eat, but this was pretty terrible injury.  Someone told me to use some oil on it.  So by oil I hardly, you know, recovered.  I have still, you know, some mark here.  Alm- [partial word]—we did almost all the mischievous thing, almost.  But when we do it with all of us, he didn&#8217;t scold us so badly.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But one day, we ate some big persimmon—four or five persimmons, which he kept it until it is—until they are good enough to eat in rice—in rice.  And when someone ate it, you know—I don&#8217;t know who did it—but when he found out someone ate several persimmons already, he asked me who ate it.  So i—actually I didn&#8217;t know, you know.  &#8220;No, I don&#8217;t know,&#8221; I said.  And he started to find out who did it.  Finally he found out two of them—two of us had eaten.  At that time he was <span style="text-decoration: underline;">very</span> angry, you know, not because we ate it, but because he—they didn&#8217;t share the persimmons with all of us.  He was very angry.  I think he was very—pretty kind to all of us, I think.  Maybe with skillful mean.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  What time is it?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  It&#8217;s 9:30.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Just right [laughter] [1-2 words unclear].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p>
<p>______________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Sources:  Partial transcript by David Chadwick and City Center original tape.  Transcript checked against tape and made verbatim by Adam Tinkham and Bill Redican (2/12/01).</h6>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  It did not.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  Suzuki Butsumon Sogaku (c. 1858–1933).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  Komazawa University, Tōkyō.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [4]  Sentō (Jap.):  name pertaining to a former emperor—in this case Henry Pu Yi (Manchu Aisin<em> </em>Gioro<em>,</em> 1906–67, last emperor [1908–12] of China).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [5]  In Chinese, Changchun, later renamed Xinjing.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [6]  Gyokujun So-on.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [7]  1956 [see <em>Crooked Cucumber</em>, p. 153].</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [8]  Suzuki-rōshi left for San Francisco, via Honolulu, on May 21, 1959, at the age of 55.  He arrived in San Francisco on May 23.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [9]  Near Zoun-in temple, in the city Fukuroi, western Shizuoka prefecture.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [10]  Professor Kido Sugioka of Komazawa University.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>  Uchiyama Kōshō-rōshi (c. 1912–1998).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a>  Kōshō Uchiyama [English order of names], <em>Modern Civilization and Zen.</em>  Administrative Office of Sōtō Sect, June 1967, 36 pp.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a>  Yoshida Shigeru (<strong>1878–1967):  Prime Minister of Japan </strong>for most of the period between 1946 and 1954<strong>.  Negotiated and </strong>signed, in 1951 in San Francisco, the Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Japan.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a>  Suzuki-rōshi&#8217;s graduation thesis for Komazawa University was entitled &#8220;Raihai-tokuzui&#8221; <em>no maki o chushin to seru Dōgen-zenji no shukyo </em>(<em>Dōgen-zenji&#8217;s Religion as Seen Especially in the</em> &#8220;Raihai-tokuzui&#8221; <em>Chapter of </em>Shōbōgenzō).<em> </em> His thesis advisor was Professor Nukariya Kaiten.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a>  That is, a fellow student or peer, not a brother by birth.  This was probably Kojun Noiri-rōshi.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a>  Probably Kendo Okamoto (<em>Crooked Cucumber</em>, p. 90).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a>  Zoun-in temple, Mori-machi, Shizuoka Prefecture, central Japan.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a>  <em>tabi</em> (Jap.):  Thin white socks traditionally worn with sandals.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a>  Phonetic guess only.  According to Chadwick, this was a cake (<em>Crooked Cucumber, </em>p. 24).</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1057</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-09-1-t.mp3" length="11886827" type="audio/mpeg" />
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-09-2-t.mp3" length="4853619" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>November 7th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1050</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1050#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 1969 02:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defilements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lotus Sutra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mind-only]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi LOTUS SŪTRA, LECTURE NO. 7:  CHAPTER II [Third Lotus Sūtra Series] Friday Evening, November 7, 1969 Zen Mountain Center Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-07 part 1 Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-07 part 2 In this sūtra in Chapter II, &#8220;Skillful Means,&#8221; he—he is correcting our misunderstanding about the vehicle of shrāvakas [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_1053" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 624px"><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SR0067.jpg"><img class="size-large wp-image-1053 " title="SR0067" src="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SR0067-1024x718.jpg" alt="" width="614" height="431" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Suzuki-roshi in the Buddha hall at City Center with Katagiri-roshi</p></div>
<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi</strong></p>
<p><strong><em>LOTUS SŪTRA</em></strong><strong>, LECTURE NO. 7:  CHAPTER II</strong></p>
<p><strong>[Third <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>Series] </strong></p>
<p><strong>Friday Evening, November 7, 1969 </strong></p>
<p><strong>Zen Mountain Center </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-07-1-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-07 part 1</a></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-07-2-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-11-07 part 2</a></p>
<p>In this sūtra in Chapter II, &#8220;Skillful Means,&#8221; he—he is correcting our misunderstanding about the vehicle of <em>shrāvaka</em>s and vehicle of <em>pratyeka</em>s.  You know, why we call <em>pratyeka</em> vehicle or <em>shrāvaka</em>&#8216;s vehicle &#8220;Small Vehicle&#8221; is because their understanding is not right.  When you understand those teaching is the—just skillful means of Buddha, to suggest the only one Great Vehicle, which is the perfect teaching—so-called-it perfect teaching or teaching which Buddha had in his own mind before he, you know, explain it, that is the teaching which is complete.  And this is—development of the Buddhist thought is always concentrated on this point:  how to get approach to the perfect teaching.  The Mahāyāna Buddhist tried to treat the Buddha&#8217;s teaching which was told by him already, so that we can understand what he meant actually.  But as Zen student says, all those teaching are the finger to point at the moon.  And what will be the perfect teaching was the problem which we have had since Buddha.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>May be better to explain it more complete way.  Although it is difficult to explain it, so accordingly for you it may be difficult to [laughs] understand what I say.  But—not only teaching but also this is the understanding of life and understanding of reality.  When you think there is something—in this chapter from Page 25<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>  is referring to this point.  When, you know, they think this is the final teaching, or when they think, &#8220;I understood completely what Buddha said,&#8221; or when they think they attained final stage, which is for <em>arhat</em>—the arharship, then that is not final stage because—just because he thinks this is final stage.  If he doesn&#8217;t think in that way, and if he [is] continuously striving for the final stage, he—he is said to be a good disciple of Buddha.  But when he said—when he say, &#8220;I attained arharship,&#8221; or when they think this is the complete teaching, you know—when you listen to four noble truths or eight holy paths, then that is already mistake.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And this is also true with Mahāyāna Buddhist.  Mahāyāna Buddhist thinks, you know, the—all the teaching is, in one word, emptiness.  A teaching of emptiness is the true teaching.  But if you think in that way, that is also wrong.  Then what is the real teaching is—real teaching is teaching which could be, you know, verbal teaching, and which could be teaching of emptiness, and which is not just verbal teaching, and which is not just teaching of emptiness.  That is real teaching [laughs].  You know, I—you—you already studied, &#8220;Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form, and form is form, and emptiness is emptiness.&#8221;  That is real teaching.</p>
<p><span id="more-1050"></span></p>
<p>Here is a book, you know, and this is verbal teaching, and this is, you know, this side is teaching of emptiness.  So if you think teaching of emptiness is teaching of this side is wrong, and teaching of this side is right, then both is not perfect teaching, you know.  Both people, you know, just stick to one-sided view:  emptiness and form.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Real emptiness or middle way is not here.  The middle way is observing, you know, this one—this side and this side from quite different level.  The middle way is right here.  And they—from—those who understand middle way—this—if this side—this viewpoint is wrong, this point is also wrong.  And if this side is right, the other side—this side should be right.  Real teaching of emptiness is not on this level.  It is—it may be like this, you know.  All those side is the teaching of—verbal teaching.  And when we say &#8220;emptiness,&#8221; it is like this, you know.  So you—this kind of teaching cannot be compare with the teaching which is standing—completely different teaching.  So if you, you know, extend your usual understanding without giving up thinking mind, you cannot, you know, understand the teaching of emptiness in its true sense.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The teaching of emptiness is the teaching which could be understand when you give up thinking mind.  And when you actually start to practice our way.  And as long as you are going on, practice after practice, then you will understand <span style="text-decoration: underline;">real</span> teaching of emptiness.  This is the point—this sūtra put emphasis on it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So if you—if we start this kind of practice, you will be, you know—you will [be] sure to be a buddha.  That is so-called-it <em>juki</em>,<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>  you know.  In this sūtra you will be a buddha at certain time, at certain place, and at that time you—your name will be so-and-so, you know.  It means that.  But if you—only when you continue your practice—that is a condition—important condition, you know, to be—to understand what is real teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The other day, someone asked me—some difficult term like &#8220;five pollution.&#8221;  I don&#8217;t remember what this translation says &#8220;five—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Defilements</span>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Defilements.  Defilements?  And they—defilement—this is—may not be so important, but it is interesting to know what is five defilements [laughs, laughter].<a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You know, first—first one—what—which is first one?  You know, order is sometime different.  Starting from <em>kalpa—kalpa—</em>not &#8220;defilement&#8221;—&#8221;pollution&#8221; is more adequate word:  <em>gojoku</em>, we say <em>gojoku akusei.<a title="" href="#_ftn4"><strong>[4]</strong></a>  </em> You know—<em>akusei</em>—&#8221;bad world,&#8221; where there is five pollution or polluted—like polluted air, you know, in city [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>First one is <em>kalpa</em> pollution.  According to the [laughs] time <em>kalpa</em> people live, there is difference—big difference in the degree of pollution.  When our human world is very pure, we had very long life.  Eight million years of life—each one of us could survive eight—eight million years.  That—because there was—the air was not so [laughs, laughter]—so bad.  But now, you know, in our days we can live just—at most 100 years.  And in this way, air pollution will become [laughs, laughter] worse and worse, and if we will, you know, survive in very bad year, it will continuously, you know—pollution will be heavier and heavier until we can live in it just three years [laughs, laughter].  All of us will die out at the age of three or two or one [laughs].  This kind of idea they had.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So this is—maybe—defilements is more advanced, you know, interpretation of it.  In China they—the five—instead of saying five pollution, they said two defilement.  That—that is more subjective interpret- [partial word]—or more psychological interpretation—version of it.  The one is defilements caused by wrong thinking, wrong understanding, wrong viewpoint.  The other is more emotional defilements.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But originally it is more interesting, you know.  They had more interesting understanding or version of it.  The f- [partial word]—&#8221;and those pollution of air is created by human being because of passion and evil desires.&#8221;  Because human being has so many and so strong passion and evil desires, the air will be polluted more and more.  And this is divided in two:  one is more sociological, you know, version of pollution, like when—when people doesn&#8217;t know their father and mother, you know, not much—doesn&#8217;t know not much about father&#8217;s life or mother&#8217;s life.  Or who is priest or who is Brahman, or no sense of seniority.  Then that will, at that time, you know, the air will be polluted more.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And no idea of obligation, or no justice, or no duty.  And they—when people does not behave.  And when people does not afraid of the result of bad conduct.  When people has no wisdom to see things as it is.  And when people has not much virtue.  And when people do not observe precepts so much, like eight precepts:  no taking like, no steal, no sex, no deceive, no intoxicant materials, no perfume [laughs, laughter], no dancing, no theater [laughs], no television, maybe [laughs, laughter].  No [laughs, laughter] [1 word] don&#8217;t chair or bed.  No eat after noon [laughs, laughter].  If people doesn&#8217;t observe—do not observe those, you know, pure precepts, then air will be polluted [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And then we will have—this is more, you know, subjective—this—those [above] are more sociological version of it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And <em>bonnō-joku</em>—you know, pollution by our passion.  This is—if we have strong evil desires or passion.  And if we have—if we like to keep sword or weapon, you know—if we involved in juridical case or fight, in this way the—our air would be polluted.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And we count already <em>kalpa</em> pollution, and sentient beings pollution, and pollution by evil passions.  One two three.  The fourth one is to have various, you know, erroneous view of life and society like capitalism or communism [laughs].  Those are the cause of—those imperfect view of life will cause pollution.  In one word, various heretical teaching.  We count 62 heresy—heretical understanding of life.  I—it is rather—may be interesting, but so complicated.  Sixty-two.  Those are pollution by our understanding of life—wrong view of life.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And those things will result because of those pollution, you know, we—our life will not be so long.  So this is so-called-it pollution—short life caused by pollution.  Those are five pollutions.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The more Mahāyāna way of understanding of those pollution is when we come to the <em>kalpa</em> where there is many bad things appear—bad events take place, that is <em>kalpa</em> pollution.  And pollution by sentient beings or people when we have not much good people, that is pollution by human being.  And when we have become greedy or when we have anger, greed, and ignorance, and other passions, that—and because of this we cannot follow the right path, then that is called pollution by passion.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And when we cannot understand the Buddha&#8217;s teaching because of wrong view of life, that us pollution by view of life.  And when we had more than eight million years of life, there was no Buddha&#8217;s teaching, or Buddha&#8217;s teaching was not necessary.  But when our age come to six million years, Kuruson—Kuruson Buddha—Kuruson Buddha <a title="" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>  appeared and started Buddha&#8217;s teaching.  And when Shākyamuni Buddha appeared, some people could live one hundred and twenty.  But our teaching will be end—ended when we live just three years old.  That is, you know, the commentary to the <em>Vimalakīrti Sūtra.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So it is interesting to, you know, to see the commentary of the scriptures.  Then you will see the—how Buddha&#8217;s—understanding of Buddha&#8217;s teaching developed.  Actually, this <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>is good example of good material to know how Buddha&#8217;s teaching—understanding of Buddha&#8217;s teaching developed and become deeper and deeper.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I think if you have a question, please ask me.  I want to—it may be better to have question-and-answer time.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Where Kern translates &#8220;supreme perfect enlightenment, or knowledge of the all-knowing,&#8221; Hurvitz, I think, translates &#8220;knowledge of all modes.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Could you explain that difference—or what it—what it means, &#8220;knowledge of all modes&#8221;?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Knowledge of all modes.  If—if I explain it literally, it is very, you know, difficult.  So may be better to explain it more, you know, referring to our practice, you know.  The supreme perfect, you know, teaching—we say so as if there is some teaching, you know, which is—which you can understand, or as if there is some stage where you can understand everything, you know.  But actually it is not so.  What it means—what it means is back-and-forth, you know, we are discussing about what is the perfect knowledge, or what is buddha-knowledge.  Although, you know, we don&#8217;t know what it is, there is some way, you know, to have best use of it [laughs], you know.  Although we don&#8217;t know what it is, but we can have a taste of it [laughs].  &#8220;What is it?&#8221;  &#8220;Oh, this very sweet.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  &#8220;This is very good something.  I don&#8217;t know what it is, and this taste is always same.&#8221;  Although it is always same, but we have always different feeling from it.  We have always, you know, different taste from it.  You know, someone may say, &#8220;Let me try.  Oh, this is good.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  &#8220;What kind of taste did you taste?  Anyway, it was very good.  Anyway, I like it very much.  What kind of experience did you have?&#8221;  And, you know, each one of us will explain what kind of taste it was.  Looks like different, and looks like same, and it—it—it is always encouraging taste and very refreshing.  Always fresh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>By practice, you know, we can—when we give up all the preconceived idea, or when we do not rely on any particular reaching, and when we become just like a child, and when our mind is very soft and flexible, we will have that kind of taste from—through our everyday life.  That is something which are al- [partial word]—which we are always talking about.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B [Bill Shurtleff]:</strong>  When Buddha began to try and show his students—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  —what he understood—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  —he didn&#8217;t teach them the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> to begin with, but rather some other sūtras that we call Hīnayāna sūtras.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  Why is it that—that we, very much like those first students of his, begin our practice studying a sūtra that he felt they could only hear after they&#8217;d been practicing for some 30 years?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Why we prac- [partial word]—study some teaching which was told?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  Buddha waited some 30 years before teaching the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.  He felt that his students had to understand other things before they would be capable of understanding the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  Mm-mm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  And yet we begin, as very young students, with the <em>Lotus Sūtra.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong>  Why is it that we don&#8217;t begin in the same way that Buddha&#8217;s students did?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  There is, you know—you understand in that way.  Actually, this sūtra was told by Buddha, you know, thirty years after [he started teaching].  But, you know, it is not so, actually.  This sūtra was told by—no one knows who told this sūtra.  But historically, you know, it was obviously—this sūtra was told 100 BC or 150 BC, not by direct—even by direct disciple, but by Buddhist, you know, who thought out Buddha&#8217;s teaching.  By experience, various religious, you know, things—rituals and—by reading or practicing something—zazen, or practicing rituals, and came to this point.  So for—for—for us, you know, who are actually practicing zazen, there will not be no need to read this kind of scripture.  But, you know, if you think zazen practice is the only way to have Buddha&#8217;s—to have the same experience as Buddha had, that is also not perfect.  That is not right.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>To understand what is zazen, we must, you know, understand those things.  If zazen practice is good, those sūtras should be also good.  And if we don&#8217;t feel in that way, something [is] wrong with our practice.  Our practice may be Hīnayāna practice, maybe [laughs]—I, you know, very primitive practice which is involved in some gaining idea or some fixed idea of practice.  Whatever we do, it is—it should be our practice.  Eating is practice, sleeping is practice, whatever you—we do, that is practice.  And whatever we read, you know, it should be our practice, and we should know <span style="text-decoration: underline;">how</span> we should read those scriptures, and we should know how to study various things besides Buddhist teaching.  That is right understanding of practice—of zazen.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, you know, if—if—if you just—your understanding of zazen practice … <em>[Sentence not finished.  Tape turned over.]</em>  … us, you know.  In this way, they under- [partial word]—they understand, you know, they limited—under some limitation, they try to be something like Buddha by <span style="text-decoration: underline;">his</span> teaching.  But Buddha himself wanted to make everyone like—like—like him.  Buddha wanted everyone to be a—various buddha.  So we say, &#8220;Buddha taught us in one word, but people understand various way.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time, there were many—various kinds of language in India, so Buddha, you know, once try—Buddha&#8217;s disciple asked him to speak in Makada<a title="" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>  language, but he didn&#8217;t do so.  He spoke many language, according to the people.  Even so, you know, when he speak something according to the ability of the people, understanding of his teaching may be different.  That is why we have more appropriately, you know—that is why we have various kinds of sūtra according to the version of one teaching of Buddha.  Someone must have understood this way, someone must have understood [in a] more limited way like <em>shrāvaka</em>s or <em>pratyeka</em> way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do you underst- [partial word]—okay?  [Laughs.]  This is not my under- [partial word], you know, my own explanation.  According to various scholars&#8217; study, this is true historically, and accumulating various data or information and studying, you know, more scientific way, this is true.  And [it is] how Buddhism developed actually.  So right now—with this understanding, we are practicing our way.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Rōshi, did—a question I had—it&#8217;s another one of those number questions.  It says in the sūtra:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>To preach the Great Vehicle definitively,</p>
<p>This dharma of mine, in nine divisions,</p>
<p>I preach by matching it to the beings,</p>
<p>Keeping the entry into the Great Vehicle as the basis—<a title="" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Nine divisions he says this dharma teaching has.  Do you know anything about—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Nine division.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Nine divisions.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Nine division is, you know, according to the ability of the people, you know, there is nine kinds of worlds.  So his teaching will, you know, reach nine division of the world.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Of the world.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  The are enumerated—not the worlds but the names of the scriptures which apply to each world are enumerated in a footnote in the Kern book.<a title="" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Excuse me?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  In a footnote—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  —in the translation by Kern, he speaks of the nine divisions, and he lists them.  I think, actually, he says that there are nine divisions into which the dharma or—or sūtras or some holy writing fall, and they are listed [as] nine ones for Theravāda, and then  nine ones for Mahāyāna.  They sound pretty much the same.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  And then they&#8217;re in a footnote.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Footnote?  In this book, you mean?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  I think, yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Nine division.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  Yes.  Maybe—maybe his understanding of nine divisions is not the same as yours.  I don&#8217;t know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Just a moment.  Page—I will check later, you know.  Will you give me the exact page, or—in this book or—which book?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  In—in the translation of the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> by Kern.  The first one we had—from the Sanskrit.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh, this one.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  Yeah.  I&#8217;m not sure what page.  But I can look it up and then tell you.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  Okay.  Some other questions?  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Could we talk about the triple worlds?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Triple worlds?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  Triple worlds, which is—he translates as the world of desire, and world of material, and world of immaterial.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh.  That is very old, you know, thinking.  Even before Buddha, you know.  Form world, and non-form world, or some non-material world, maybe.  Form world—desire world, and form world, and non-material world.  Three world.  That is the world which we attain by practice.  If we are just involved in sensual, you know, desire—activity, that is desire world.  That is the lowest one.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And when we practice zazen, we will have form world.  The form world—in form world, we will attain four, you know, four stage.  I explained it many times, maybe, you know, if you—first stage will be the stage you have clear mind.  You can think in that stage.  And you will have good concentration.  And you don&#8217;t have—what you don&#8217;t have is agitation and contamination of mind.  And you will have the joy of conquering those, you know, agitation or strong passion.  And you will—you—you will enjoy the conquering those, you know, things.  When your drowsiness is contamination, you know, when you are not sleepy you feel good, you know [laughs].  You have that kind of joy.  And your mind is clear.  That will be the first stage.  So form world is divided in this way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The second stage will—will be the stage where you have pleasure—joy of renunciation of—from—renunciation from physical, you know, joy.  No, no—mental joy or mental, you know, wrong thinking—wrong mental, you know—like fame—to seek for fame or material or success or something like that.  But you have still physical, you know, desires—many physical desires.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The third stage will be—in third stage you have good concentration.  You have good con- [partial word]—as long as you practice zazen, you are supposed to have good concentration [in the] first stage, second stage, or third stage, or fourth stage.  But at the third stage, you have no more—you have no more physical joy.  Of course you have no mental joy even.  And you have—there you have good concentration, and form world will be almost completed in the third stage.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The fourth stage is—there you have no more feeling of being.  You are almost non-being.  That is the fourth stage.  And on the fourth stage, sometime they put, you know, more stages.  So—but that is the different version of the—maybe the fourth stage.  And fourth stage will be extended.  Another version of fourth stage will be no feeling of, you know, the fourth stage—ultimate fourth stage will be no feeling of being.  And no feeling of no-being [laughs].  That way they added more and more like that.  And those higher stage is called, you know, non-material stage.  Hī- [partial word]—that is the stage we will attain by practice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But interesting thing is, you know, it points out what kind of difficulty we have in our practice, you know.  The most difficult one is not mental one, but more physical one is more difficult to conquer.  That is opposite, you know, maybe.  You may think physical one is more easier to conquer, but it is not so.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The psychological one may be divided in two—Buddhist divide in—psychological difficulties in two.  One is the wrong view, or one-sided view is psychological difficulties we have.  And this is rather easy to, you know, to get out—to get out of it.  But more difficult psychological one is, you know, which we—which is difficult for us to know what kind of, you know, what kind of mistake we are psychologically have, like habit, you know—habitual way of thinking, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>If, you know, those who thinks, you know—for an instance, my watch—in case my watch is lost, you know, when someone&#8217;s—when watch is lost, some people may think always, &#8220;Oh!  Someone must have stolen it.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  Whenever he lose something, he thinks someone must have stolen it.  But it—it is not actually so, you know.  It may not be so.  But he thinks, you know, before he, you know, think even [laughs], he immediately, you know, observe in that—understand in that way, even without thinking.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Because he does not think, that&#8217;s his trouble [laughs].  If he is able—he has time to think before he give some judgment, it may be all right.  But he has—he don&#8217;t think, you know.  But actually his mind giving some decision to it—conclusion to it.  If he doesn&#8217;t like someone, you know, before he think he is right or wrong, he thinks he is wrong, you know.  That is more habitual way of thinking.  And it was created by some—some kind of past experience.  To get rid of this kind of habitual thinking is—is most difficult one.  We call it <em>shibakku.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a><em>  Okaibakku</em><a title="" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>  is the, you know, wrong view.  <em>Shibakku</em> is more habitual things, which sticks—which always—by which your mind is always tainted or colored in some way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So by our hard practice we should wash, you know, we should make our mind is—mind clear and purified.  That is, you know, more difficult practice.  So this kind of, you know, stage—I don&#8217;t think there is such a stage, you know, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">clear</span> stage.  &#8220;This is first,&#8221; or &#8220;This is the second,&#8221; or &#8220;This is third.&#8221;  But it points out what kind of difficulty we have in our right thinking or right activity.  It does not mean there is such world, you know:  desire world, or form world, or non-material world.  Okay?<em>  Hai.</em></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  In this chapter it says that—Buddha&#8217;s speaking to his disciples and he says that they should evince the strength of great faith towards the dharma of the Buddha.  How—how do you evince—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  How?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  —how do you acquire or evince strength of faith?  How do you evince—how do you acquire or evince strength of faith?  How do you acquire faith?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Acquire—how we acquire what—faith?  Faith.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  Trust in the teachings.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  This is, you know, actually only one way, you know.  We—if Buddhist put emphasis on faith, you may feel strange.  So I am trying not to say &#8220;faith&#8221; or [laughs], you know, &#8220;belief.&#8221;  I am trying.  But actually there is no other way, you know, to.  In this point, I think all religion will be the same.  And it is that—you know, the other day<a title="" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>  I explained in this way, you know:  Eyes cannot see eyes, you know, although eyes can see many things, but eyes cannot see themselves.  How eyes will know themselves is to put faith in it.  And that is, you know, not to be involved in dualistic idea.  You know, when we say, &#8220;Don&#8217;t be involved in dualistic idea,&#8221; it means that &#8220;Don&#8217;t be involved in idea of object or subject.&#8221;  Actually, Buddhist put emphasis on this point.  The Hī- [partial word]—difference between Hīnayāna teaching and Mahāyāna teaching is this point.  The view of substantiality, you know, is to put object in front of ourselves and to say, &#8220;Here is a book.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is usual understanding, but is not real—is not complete and is not real.  When we say, &#8220;Here is,&#8221; you know, &#8220;this book,&#8221; it means that, &#8220;Here is my mind.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  &#8220;My mind is here,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;My mind is looking at it.&#8221;  When you reflect on yourself, you know, your mind is projected in objective world and you say &#8220;This is my mind,&#8221; but actually my mind—your mind is here [patting self], you know, not there.  So my mind [patting self] is not something which you can see, which you can understand.  When you understand in that way, my mind—you mind is all over.  Wherever you see something, that is your mind also.  Do you understand?  My mind is there.  Nothing can be just objective.  It—things which we see is subjective and objective, and my mind is always working on it.  In this sense, this is so-called-it &#8220;essence of mind.&#8221;  Mind which follows—which is everywhere, and mind which create everything.  And that mind is not particular mind to our- [partial word]—myself or to you.  It is more big mind; it is not small mind because it is everywhere.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>On what [laughs]—what was you question?  [Laughter.]  I lost your question [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  It was about faith.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student F:</strong>  It was how to—how to acquire faith.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Faith, yeah—acquire faith.  You know, that kind of mind, you know, is not the mind which you can put, you know, as a—which you can take as a face of object, you know, because everything is—that mind, you know, is on everything or in everything I don&#8217;t know [laughs], but that mind is everywhere.  Do you understand that mind?  That kind of mind—to understand that kind of mind is just to, you know [laughs]—<span style="text-decoration: underline;">that is it</span>, you know.  No need to explain.  But if—because you have always think or believe in something in term of here or there, or great or small, right or wrong, we must say something about it.  But this is the ultimate truth which we should accept.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You may say, &#8220;If we shut our eyes, even though we shut our eyes, things exist,&#8221; you know.  But that is some created idea by your mind.  So where—whatever you do, wherever you go, that mind is—follows you, even though you don&#8217;t figure out exactly what it is.  So the only way is to put faith on it.  Then you will have, you know, freedom from everything.  That kind of mind is essence of mind.  That kind of understanding is real understanding of emptiness.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Maybe, you know, you don&#8217;t accept [laughs] what I say right now.  Maybe it takes time.  Do you understand what I am saying?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This kind of teaching is not Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna.  It is ultimate truth.  When <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>—knowing this point says—&#8221;you put faith in it&#8221; means you should know this—know this mind.  This is essence of mind, or big mind.  Okay?  Did you understand [laughs]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So Buddhist doesn&#8217;t, you know, accept any kind of mind, you know, except this mind.  We don&#8217;t accept just objective being or subjective being.  We don&#8217;t say mind create things, or things produce function of mind—mind-like function, or material first, or mind first.  We don&#8217;t say so.  Whatever it is, it is mind and b- [partial word]—materialistic—material and spiritual.  That is, you know—and we only discuss something which is both material and spiritual.  This is the golden rule of Buddhism [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  What [1-2 words]—I don&#8217;t understand.  [Laughter.]  I underst- [partial word]—the only think I make out of what you say is that—in answer to Ken [Berman]&#8216;s question—is that in the West, here, when we use the word &#8220;faith&#8221; we usually mean something outside ourselves which we can depend on.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  Which would mean—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  —that if we had faith in the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> we could trust the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> and the teaching.  Or if we had faith in you, we could depend on you.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  Or if we had faith in our mother, we could depend on our mother.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  But from what you say, it doesn&#8217;t sound that way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  It has to do with the state of mind rather than trusting <span style="text-decoration: underline;">on</span> something.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  But what that state of mind <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span> is very—it&#8217;s not—not clear.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs, laughing.]  Not clear.  Maybe.  No one can make it clear.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  The word &#8220;faith&#8221; is not a good word, maybe.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student G:</strong>  The word &#8220;faith&#8221; is maybe not a good word.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.  No, not at all good.  So I don&#8217;t like to use that words—&#8221;faith,&#8221; you know.  It seems to have something [to do with] &#8220;to put faith in it,&#8221; you know.  It is not so, you know.  All the—all the things we see is just good expedience of, you know—good means of suggesting the true ultimate reality.  So not only Small Vehicle, but all the—all the teaching and all the being, whatever it is, it is good means of Buddha.  Who is Buddha?  [Laughs.]  We don&#8217;t know.  It is not something we can describe.  It is beyond description, but something we should—we have to, you know, believe in it.  Without that, we cannot think, we cannot say anything, we cannot do anything.  Nothing exist.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>To find out that essence of mind is—or how to talk about the essence of mind is good skillful means of Buddha.  So he is always talking about [that] which is not possible to talk about.  That is skillful mean—what it means by skillful mean.  So for Buddhists there is no other teaching than skillful means.  Whatever the teaching may be, that is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">just</span> skillful means.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student H:</strong>  Rōshi, then all the teaching—the <em>Upanishads</em>, the Yoga sūtras, the Brahma sūtras—then they are all Buddhist teachings, aren’t they?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  If <span style="text-decoration: underline;">we</span> understand in that way.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  If I fell down and broke my leg, then that&#8217;s also the Buddha&#8217;s teaching?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  And I should have faith in it?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs.]  Faith?  Not faith—yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  Well, belief in [1-2 words]—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  —feel that it&#8217;s the Buddha&#8217;s teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.  Even though you <span style="text-decoration: underline;">die</span>, there is Buddha&#8217;s teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  When—when the Buddha says &#8220;have faith in the teaching,&#8221; that&#8217;s a skillful means.  It isn&#8217;t the teaching itself, but it&#8217;s a skillful means.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.  Yes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  So when you—when you—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  So skillful means, in other word, is very important, you know.  Without it, we—we have no approach to the—only approach is skillful means, because we cannot grasp that essence of mind.  Only by skillful means we can grasp it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  Is—is skillful means direct transmission?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Skillful means, you know, by—to transmit—we have nothing to transmit, you know.  [Laughter.]  Oh, you know—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  Do you not use &#8220;understanding&#8221;—in—in a sense, do we not use the word &#8220;understanding&#8221; instead of &#8220;faith&#8221;?  You have understanding—is—it seems to me is the word that we use—the Buddhists use, instead of &#8220;having <span style="text-decoration: underline;">faith&#8221;</span> is to &#8220;have <span style="text-decoration: underline;">understanding</span>.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Understanding is—is necessary, you know.  This kind of talk is understanding, you know.  Although we cannot—unless you understand what I am saying completely, you know [laughs], you may not understand.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  I have to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">believe</span> it, though, before I can understand it.  [Laughter.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Believe, yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  Believe.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Anyway [laughter], nothing wrong to believe in [laughs]—in essence of mind.  Nothing wrong with it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  If we <span style="text-decoration: underline;">don&#8217;t</span> understand, is that skillful means?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  If you don&#8217;t understand, you know, you should try to understand it.  If you understand what I am saying, you know, you will understand there is no way to, you know, to understand it [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  How do you feel, then, when you always ask us, &#8220;Do we understand?&#8221;  [Laughter.]  It always seems so tongue-in-cheek, like—like you don&#8217;t want us to understand, and that&#8217;s understanding.  And it&#8217;s like—it&#8217;s like a—something chasing its tail.  And—and I always try to push that out of my mind when you ask that.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs, laughter.]  You know [laughter], what I am saying is very logical, you know.  So I say, &#8220;Do you understand?  Do you agree with me?&#8221; you know.  So far, nothing wrong with my statement.  That is what I am saying.  You see?  And the conclusion is you don&#8217;t—it is not possible to understand the essence of mind.  That is my conclusion [laughs, laughter].  And when I say, &#8220;Do you understand?&#8221; means, &#8220;Is there any,&#8221; you know, &#8220;mistake in my,&#8221; you know, &#8220;way of thinking?&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student I:</strong>  Can we <span style="text-decoration: underline;">experience</span> the essence of mind?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  Yes and no.  [Laughs.]  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Yes</span>, but it is not possible to have <span style="text-decoration: underline;">full</span> experience of it.  That is why we continue our practice.  And that is why we enjoy our practice, because there is—it is endless, you know, trip, you know.  [Laughter.]  One after another you will [laughs] enjoy, you know, various things.  And yet there is no end, you see?  But you feel very good, and you are not—you are not fooling—you are not fooled by anything.  You have actual, you know, feeling in it—in your life.  That is more, you know, our way of life.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Oh—  <em>[Probably discovers the lateness of the hour.  Chant follows.] </em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>_________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape.  Verbatim transcript by Bill Redican (7/9/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  Page 25 of the handout, not the final 1976 edition.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  <em>juki</em> (Jap.):  being told by the Buddha that one will attain enlightenment.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  Traditionally, the five <em>gojoku</em> are:</p>
<p>(1)     <em>kalpa-kaùàya</em><em> </em>(<em>kōjoku</em>)—a period of war, natural disasters, and pestilence;</p>
<p>(2)     <em>dçùti-kaùàya</em><em> </em>(<em>kenjoku</em>)—a period of heresies;</p>
<p>(3)     <em>klesha-kaùàya</em><em> </em>(<em>bonnō-joku</em>)—a period of strong passions;</p>
<p>(4)     <em>sattva-kaùàya</em><em> </em>(<em>shujō-joku</em>)—a period in which people are physically and mentally weak; and</p>
<p>(5)     <em>àyuù-kaùàya</em><em> </em>(<em>myō-joku</em>)—a period in which lifespans are brief.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a>  Phonetic guess only.  Spelling is not verified.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [5]  Kuruson Buddha (San. Krakucchanda-buddha):  the fourth of the six  buddhas before Shākyamuni.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [6]  Japanese for the Magadhi dialect of Sanskrit.  Buddha is widely believed to have spoken in Magadhi on other occasions.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [7]  Hurvitz, 1976, p. 33.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [8]  Kern, 1963, p. 45:  &#8220;The nine divisions … of Scripture, are with the Southern Buddhists, Sutta, [etc.] … to which answer in the Northern enumeration Sūtra, [etc.] ….&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [9]  Phonetic guess only.  Spelling is not verified.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>  <em>Ibid.</em></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>  SR-69-10-23 and SR-69-10-25.</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1050</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-07-1-t.mp3" length="12492679" type="audio/mpeg" />
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-11-07-2-t.mp3" length="5962363" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 30th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1046</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1046#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 1969 02:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lotus Sutra]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi LOTUS SŪTRA, LECTURE NO. 6 [Third Lotus Sūtra Series] Thursday Evening, October 30, 1969 Zen Mountain Center Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-30 (note: the audio speeds up as the recording goes along) &#160; The print[1]—print you have got there is trans- [partial word]—mostly translated from Kumārajīva&#8217;s translation.[2]   Kumārajīva is Chinese famous translator, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi </strong></p>
<p><strong><em>LOTUS SŪTRA</em></strong><strong>, LECTURE NO. 6 </strong></p>
<p><strong>[Third <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>Series] </strong></p>
<p><strong>Thursday Evening, October 30, 1969 </strong></p>
<p><strong>Zen Mountain Center </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-10-30-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-30</a></p>
<p>(note: the audio speeds up as the recording goes along)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The print<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>—print you have got there is trans- [partial word]—mostly translated from Kumārajīva&#8217;s translation.<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>   Kumārajīva is Chinese famous translator, and his translation is famous for his—for his beautiful words.  And easy to understand.  That is why most people—most Chinese people liked his translation, and at the same time <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> became very popular sūtra.  It is not exactly literal translation, but because he was a great scholar, his translation is very correct and very easy to understand.  And as a literature, it is also good.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Kumārajīva&#8217;s father [Kumārayāna] was an Indian, and his father came to—I don&#8217;t know what you call—Kashmir—Kashmir?  Do you understand [laughs]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  Yes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Kashmir.  Kiji—Kiji, in Chinese.  Kiji-koku.  And he—he [Kumārayāna] got married with emperor&#8217;s sister [Jīvaka].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And Kumārajīva was—when he was quite young he started study of Buddhism.  When he was seven, he already read scriptures.  And when he was nine years old, he started study of Mahāyāna already.  At first, under some teacher he studied Hīnayāna mostly.  And—and when he was twelve he went to some other neighboring country and studied more about teaching of <em>Prajñāpāramitā</em> group [of sūtras].  And when he came back to his country—his father&#8217;s country, his former teacher became his disciple [laughs].  He was so, you know, smart fellow.  And the teacher said, &#8220;You are my Mahāyāna teacher, and you are—and I am your teacher of Hīnayāna teaching,&#8221; he said.  And he studied under him [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We don&#8217;t know how long he was there.  But anyway, his mother went back to India.  Maybe his country became more and more weaker, and Chinese people more and more ready to invade his country.  Maybe that is why.  But he stayed [in] his father&#8217;s country and was teaching Mahāyāna teaching.</p>
<p><span id="more-1046"></span></p>
<p>Chinese people—his n- [partial word]—scholarly na- [partial word]—his name was known to even China.  So Chinese general sent his men to his country—to Kumārajīva&#8217;s country to get him, you know.  And they were defeated by Chinese, and he was captured—captivated.  And before he arrived [in] capital city of China, Chōan [Ch'ang-an],<a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>  his—Lō Kō [Lu Kuang] was the general—Lō Kō was—Lō Kō had that—his—his king—maybe king—his king was, you know, killed.<a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>   So he stayed there—Lō Kō stayed [in] northern part of China [holding Kumārajīva in captivity].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And soon he—they went back—they went to Chōan, the capital city of China, and started translation—various translation.  And he—he had—I don&#8217;t know how true it is, but he had 8,000 disciples.  At least he has ten famous scholars as his disciple, among them Sōjō,<a title="" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>  you know.  Sōjō is very famous, especially for his, you know, Zen-like teaching.  So we find various technical—Zen technical terms in Sōjō&#8217;s book.  Anyway, Kumārajīva is a big translator.  And we call his translation or—and—before Kumārajīva we call &#8220;old&#8221; translation, and after Genjō<a title="" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>  we call &#8220;new&#8221; translation.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>As you know, the—this sūtra—the original—original text of Kumārajīva&#8217;s translation is not—no one knows exactly what kind of a text book.  We have ma- [partial word]—so far we have many Sanskrit text book:  Nepal, Tibet, and northern part of Asia.  And some of—some of them in Russia, you know—the famous Sanskrit original text in Russia—Petrograd—Petrograd?  The—and some of them in England.  And some copies are, maybe, in Germany, and France, or Dutch—Holland.  We have many translations—texts, but we don&#8217;t know which original text Kumārajīva used.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But anyway, the copy [of Hurvitz's edition] is mostly translated from Kumārajīva&#8217;s translation, which is very familiar to Japanese people.  Most Japanese—most Japanese people use this—Kumārajīva&#8217;s translation.  The rest of the tr- [partial word]—there are—100 years before [after] Kumārajīva, Dharmagupta<a title="" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>  translated this scripture, but we don&#8217;t use it so much.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So—and we have several, maybe copies, but the copies are not perfect because we didn&#8217;t use it for a long, long time.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now Shāriputra asking Buddha, you know, to—because Buddha wouldn&#8217;t talk about his final teaching, so Shāriputra [is] now asking [Buddha] many times to speak about it.  Page 22.<a title="" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>   I think we finished this <em>gāthā</em>, didn&#8217;t we?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[Suzuki-rōshi starts to read from Chapter II of the </em>Lotus Sūtra<em>, Leon Hurvitz' translation, 1976, p. 26.]</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Sun of Wisdom, the most venerable of the great saint—<br />
saints,</p>
<p>After a life [?]-long time preaches this dharma—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>[Page] 22.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Twenty</span>-two?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  22.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  [Unclear brief question.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  [Unclear brief response.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh.  Excuse me [laughs].  The <em>gāthā</em>s we finished is:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Sun of Wisdom, the most venerable of the great saints,</p>
<p>After a long—after a life [?]-long time preaches this<br />
dharma,</p>
<p>Himself saying that he has got such</p>
<p>Strength, fearlessness, <em>samādhi</em>,</p>
<p><em>Dhyāna</em>-concentration, release, and other such—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Did you find out?  I think we have—we have finished this—those <em>gāthā</em>s, didn&#8217;t we?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  I don&#8217;t think we did those [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  You—oh.  You don&#8217;t think so?  Then—this is repetition of, maybe, Page—by your book—Page 4.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now Shāriputra [is] asking Buddha to give them speech about the final truth.  Yeah, I—I think I did it.  I—I did—I briefly, you know, explained important words like &#8220;platform of the path,&#8221; you know.<a title="" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  What does that mean again?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  &#8220;Platform of the path&#8221; means where Buddha attained enlightenment.  So strictly speaking it is under Bodhi tree.  But here, [it means] where Buddha is—platform of the path.  The—later, you know, this kind of building is <em>dōjō</em> in Japanese, <em>dōjō</em>; in Sanskrit <em>bodhi-manda</em>.  I—I think I explained it.<a title="" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>   <em>Bodhi-manda</em>?  And sometime it is supposed—people say—scholars say this is translation of <em>bodhi-mandala</em>.  But it looks like <em>bodhi-manda</em> is correct.  I don&#8217;t know about [?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And I told you about cheese, you know:  when you make cheese—I don&#8217;t know how you make it, but in India, in scriptures, I understand in this way.  You, you know, take out—you divide milk, water, and oil part—rich part.  And from rich part you make cheese.  And on the surface of the cheese you will see many beautiful, you know, pictures.  That is <em>mandala</em>—something like oil, you know, oil on the water.  So that is why we call essential teaching <em>mandala</em>—something beautiful, and something essential, and something very genuine.  That is <em>mandala</em>.  But if it is—the original word is <em>bodhi-mandala</em>, the meaning will be like that.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Bodhi-manda</em> is where the <em>bodhi</em> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span>—the place like—like some place to practice.  <em>Manda</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Peter [Schneider], will you read it?  I want to—it is rather—you may be difficult to understand me if I read it—this <em>gāthā</em>:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Sun of Wisdom, the most venerable of the great saints,</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter: </strong><a title="" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a><strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>          </strong>          After a life-long time preaches this dharma,</p>
<p>Himself saying that he has gained such</p>
<p>Strengths, fearlessness, <em>samādhi</em>s,</p>
<p><em>Dhyāna</em>-concentrations, releases, and other such</p>
<p><em>          </em>Inconceivable dharmas.</p>
<p>On the dharmas attained on the platform of the path,</p>
<p>No one is able to put questions.</p>
<p>&#8220;My mind (says the Buddha) is difficult to fathom,</p>
<p>Nor is anyone able to question it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unasked (oh Buddha), you preach it yourself,</p>
<p>Praising the path you have trodden</p>
<p>And that most subtle of wisdoms</p>
<p>Which the buddhas have gained.</p>
<p>The <em>arhat</em>s without outflows</p>
<p>And they who seek nirvāna</p>
<p>Have now fallen into a net of doubt,</p>
<p>Asking themselves why the Buddha has preached this.</p>
<p>Those who seek to be condition-perceivers,</p>
<p>As well as <em>bhikshu</em>s, <em>bhikshunī</em>s,</p>
<p>Gods, dragons, demons, spirits,</p>
<p>And <em>gandharva</em>s,</p>
<p>Look at one another and harbor uncertainties,</p>
<p>Entreating the Most Venerable of Two-Legged Beings,</p>
<p>&#8220;Why is this?</p>
<p>We beg the Buddha to explain it to us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of the multitude of voice-hearers</p>
<p>The Buddha has said that I am the first.</p>
<p>I now, with respect to my knowledge,</p>
<p>Cannot resolve my doubts</p>
<p>As to whether this is the ultimate dharma</p>
<p>Or whether it is (merely) a path to tread (toward that<br />
dharma).</p>
<p>The sons born of the Buddha&#8217;s mouth,</p>
<p>Their palms joined and looking up in expectation,</p>
<p>Beg you to emit a subtle sound</p>
<p>And thus make timely explanation in keeping with<br />
reality.</p>
<p>The gods, dragons, and spirits,</p>
<p>In number like to Ganges sands,</p>
<p>Bodhisattvas seeking to be buddhas,</p>
<p>Their great number being eighty thousands,</p>
<p>And of several myriads of millions of realms</p>
<p>The saint wheel-turning kings have arrived,</p>
<p>With palms joined and with thoughts deferential,</p>
<p>Wishing to hear of the perfect path.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  All the disciples and peoples and animate beings, you know, wanted to—something from him because they have doubt—especially Shāriputra, you know, had a great doubt.  After waiting for him for long, long time—after receiving—after attaining arhatship, which is the last stage to attain for—for them, you know, if—Buddha said there is more important things to say which is difficult to understand.  Only Buddha and bodhisattva could understand it, but rest of the people—voice-hearers and <em>pratkekabuddha</em>s will not understand it.  So, you know, there is no wonder.  At least they—they were very curious about his last teaching—Buddha&#8217;s last teaching—teaching which has in Buddha&#8217;s head—mind.  So in this way they are asking Buddha to talk about it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And there is several words—important words, which I have to explain.  The four—one, two, three, four—four line:  &#8220;strengths.&#8221;  &#8220;Strengths&#8221; means, you know—we—here we count five strengths.  Sometime we say ten strengths, you know—ten or—as we chant, you know—to attain ten power.  This is five or ten.  Sometime we count ten, sometime we count five.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Ten powers are—it may take long long time if I explain it:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>[1]     no outflow, you know—no outflow—power of no outflow;</p>
<p>[2]     power of, you know, controlling birth and death:  he can have a choice in birth and death—he has a choice in birth and death;</p>
<p>[3]     and he has—he knows his former life, and he knows everything like a great—like a great teacher of geography, he knows everywhere that is;</p>
<p>[4]     and he knows the result of various practice;</p>
<p>[5]     he know—he has precise and deep understanding of teaching;</p>
<p>[6]     and he know how to help people;</p>
<p>[7]     and he knows how to calm down his mind;</p>
<p>[8]     and way to liberation;</p>
<p>[9]     and how to keep precepts—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>He has those power.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>[10]  he has power to change his karma—he can—he is possible to change his own karma.<a title="" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Those are ten powers.  And next one is fearlessness.<a title="" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a>   Fearlessness mostly means when he give statement, when he talk about dharma, he has no—he—he has nothing to fear because of his wisdom.  And his wisdom is so perfect that he has nothing to fear because he has no danger:  no danger of persecution, or no danger of enemy—from enemy.  Most, you know, fearlessness is mostly means fearlessness in his spirit to give his talk.  Of course, some other fearlessness is included, but mostly when we say &#8220;fearlessness,&#8221; fearlessness is something like this.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Those are the virtues or powers only buddha and bodhisattva has.  We count eighteen powers.  In some other scriptures we count different virtues, but anyway those are the power limited to buddha and bodhisattvas.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And the last—one, two, three—third line from the last:  &#8220;the saint wheel-turning kings.&#8221;<a title="" href="#_ftn14">[14]</a>   You know, king turns, you know, wheel of—wheel of power, wheel of politics.  But saint turns, you know, wheel of dharma.  And those kings are mostly supposed to protect right teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And next:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time, the Buddha proclaimed to Shāriputra:  &#8220;Cease!  Cease!  There is no need to speak further.  If I speak of this matter, gods and men in all the worlds shall be alarmed.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>[Laughs.]  It is good [laughs].  But not—not only &#8220;alarmed&#8221; [laughs], they may, you know—they may [1-2 words] to die [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Shāriputra again addressed the Buddha, saying:  &#8220;World-Honored One, I do but beg you to preach it, I do but beg you to preach it!  That is—what is the reason?  In this assembly numberless—assembly numberless hundreds of thousands of myriads of millions of <em>asaükhyeya</em>s<a title="" href="#_ftn15">[15]</a>  of living beings, having seen Buddha—buddhas, their faculties being sharp and their wisdom pellucid,<a title="" href="#_ftn16">[16]</a>  if they hear the Buddha&#8217;s preach—Buddha&#8217;s preachment shall be able to put reverent faith therein.&#8221;  At this time Shāriputra, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke forth a <em>gāthā</em>, saying:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Oh King of the Dharma, venerable one among the<br />
unexcelled,</p>
<p>Do but preach!  I beg you to have no second<br />
thoughts.</p>
<p>In this assembly the incalculable multitude</p>
<p>Includes those who can put reverent faith in you.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, &#8220;please speak.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Buddha again restrained Shāriputra:  &#8220;If I preach this matter, all the gods, men, and <em>asura</em>s in all the world shall be alarmed, and the arrogant <em>bhikshu</em>s<em>—bhikshu</em>s shall fall into a great trap.&#8221;  At that time the World-Honored One again speak forth a <em>gāthā</em>, saying:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Cease!  Cease!  No need to speak.</p>
<p>My dharma is subtle and hard to imagine.</p>
<p>Those of overweening pride,</p>
<p>If they hear it, shall surely neither reverse [revere]<br />
it nor believe therein.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time, Shāriputra again addressed the Buddha, saying:  &#8220;I do but beseech you to speak—to preach, I do but beseech you to preach!  In the present assembly, the [beings] like of me, numbering a hundred thousand myriads of millions, have already in successive incarnation has been over—has been covered by buddhas—converted by buddhas, excuse me.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[Repeats.]</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>—has already in successive incarnations been converted by buddhas.  Such man as these shall surely be able to revere and believe.  Throughout the long night of time they shall be secure, delivering [deriving] much advantage therefrom.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time, Shāriputra, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke forth <em>gāthā</em>s, saying—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Ah.  Peter, will you read it—this <em>gāthā</em>?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Peter:</strong> <a title="" href="#_ftn17">[17]</a><strong></strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Oh you Supremely Venerable among Two-Legged Beings,</p>
<p>I beg you to preach the prime dharma!</p>
<p>I am the Buddha&#8217;s eldest son:</p>
<p>Do but deign to preach explicitly.</p>
<p>Incalculable multitudes in this assembly</p>
<p>Can revere and believe this dharma.</p>
<p>The Buddha has already, generation after generation,</p>
<p>Taught and converted many like these.</p>
<p>All of one mind, with palms joined,</p>
<p>Wish to listen to the Buddha&#8217;s word.</p>
<p>We twelve hundred</p>
<p>And the others who seek to be buddhas</p>
<p>Beg that, for the sake of this multitude,</p>
<p>You will but deign to preach explicitly.</p>
<p>If they hear this dharma,</p>
<p>Then they shall evince great joy.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time the World-Honored One declared to Shāriputra:  &#8220;Since you have now thrice earnestly besought me, how can I not preach?  Now listen with understanding and with careful thought, for I will state it to you explicitly.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah.  So far it&#8217;s okay, isn&#8217;t it [laughter]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Students:</strong>  [Brief statements unclear.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?  Now five thousand of, you know, disciples <span style="text-decoration: underline;">left</span>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When he was speaking these words, in the assembly there were  <em>bhikshu</em>s and—<em>bhikshu</em>s, <em>bhikshuni</em>s, <em>upāsaka</em>s, and—<em>upāsaka</em>s—<em>upāsaka</em>s to the number of five thousand who straight—who st- [partial word]—who straightaway rose from their seats and, doing obeisance to Buddha, withdraw—withdrew.  For what reason?  This group had roots of sins deep and grave and—deep and grave and overweening pride, imagining themselves to have attained and to have borne—to have borne witness to what they—to what they, in fact, had not.  Having such faults as these, therefore they did not stay.  The World-Honored One, in silence, did not restrain them.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is famous parable.  Buddha did not restrain them.  This is one point.  And why they didn&#8217;t stay was another point.  This is something which we should think [about].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You know, this word is <em>intoku-intoku ichijō-ichijō</em><a title="" href="#_ftn18">[18]</a>—eight—in Chinese, eight characters.  Which—&#8221;to think he attained which he really didn&#8217;t&#8221;—&#8221;to think he is enlightened when he is not really—did not.&#8221;  That is one point.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And after they left, he started to talk about the final truth.  This, you know, to think he has attained which he hasn&#8217;t—attained something which he hasn&#8217;t, this—this is very important warning to Zen students especially.  So that is why we remember this [laughs] words, you know.  So the opposite statement will be beginner&#8217;s mind—to have beginner&#8217;s mind always.  This is very important for—especially for Zen students.  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>If you have no such danger, you are lucky [laughs], or you are not lucky [laughs]—which?  If you are <span style="text-decoration: underline;">very</span> smart, you will have this kind of danger.  But mostly—for most people, this is not so dangerous, maybe.  But final teaching is not something to understand by—just by, you know, mind.  The final teaching which is expressed by vivid action [?] and by actual works [?].  Living world—not dead state [?].  If you have no intention to express your experience, sometime you are expressing your wisdom.  I think this is very meaningful part [point?].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now, do you have some question?  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[The poor sound quality of the rest of the lecture makes accurate transcription impossible.  (The batteries in the original recorder appear to have faded.)  At this point in the tape, Suzuki-rōshi has finished his lecture, and the question-and-answer session is about to begin.]</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape.  Verbatim transcript by Bill Redican (10/24/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  A manuscript version of the translation by Leon Hurvitz (1976).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  Kumārajīva (344–413) translated the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> from Sanskrit to Chinese in 406.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  Suzuki-rōshi gives these names in their Japanese form.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [4]  Fu Chien, warlord/emperor of the Chin Dynasty, was overthrown before General Lu Kuang could return to Ch&#8217;ang-an with Kumārajīva.  Lu Kuang then established an independent state at Ku-tsang (Jap. Kozō), holding Kumārajīva as a virtual hostage for 16 years.  Kumārajīva was rescued by the second ruler of the new dynasty of Ch&#8217;ang-an, Yao Hsing (Jap. Yō Kō), in 402.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [5]  Sengzhao (Jap. Sōjō):  c. 374–414.  Chinese monk born in Chang-an.  He was a student of Kumārajīva and was on his staff of translators.  He wrote <em>Zhaolun (Chao-lun</em><em>, Jōron)</em><em>, a</em> collection of essays that is said to have inspired Shitou Xiqian (Sekitō Kisen) to write the <em>Sandōkai</em>.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [6]  Hsüan-chuang (WG) (Jap. Genjō):  602–664.  Chinese monk of the Tang dynasty who came back from India with 657 Buddhist texts.  He translated many of them from Sanskrit to Chinese.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [7]  Dharmagupta (Chin. Da-mo-ji-duo):  d. 617.  Buddhist monk from southern Indian who came to China in 590.  He translated many Mahāyāna sūtras and <em>shāstra</em>s (instructional commentaries on sūtras).  Dharmagupta and Jñānagupta translated their version of the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">after</span> Kumārajīva.  Suzuki-rōshi&#8217;s point remains that although Dharmagupta and Jñānagupta&#8217;s translation was later, more complete, and more literal than Kumārajīva&#8217;s, the latter proved to be more popular.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [8]  Page 22 of their manuscript photocopy, not of the published edition.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [9]  The confusion seems to be that these <em>gāthā</em>s are very similar to the preceding ones discussed in SR-69-10-25 (p. 5).  Many phrases are repeated, such as &#8220;platform of the path.&#8221;  So it is likely that the <em>gāthā</em>s in the present lecture had not, in fact, already been discussed in this series of lectures.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>  SR-69-10-25, pp. 5–6.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>  Peter reads the rest of the <em>gāthā</em>s in this section.  He is barely audible on the tape, but it is clear that he is reading the Hurvitz translation, and that the version he is reading is very slightly different than the 1976 published version.  The <em>gātha</em>s reproduced here are mainly from Hurvitz&#8217; 1976 published edition, revised to conform to Peter&#8217;s reading when audible.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a>  It is not clear to the transcriber if Suzuki-rōshi intended this as the tenth power, or if No. 3 is two distinct powers.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a>  Next in the sequence of Line 4:  &#8220;Strengths, fearlessness, <em>samādhi</em>s.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a>  The 1976 edition reads, &#8220;wheel-turning sage kings.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a>  <em>asamkhyeya:</em>  (San.) incalculably large number.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a>  Transparently clear.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a>  Peter&#8217;s off-mike reading is inaudible.  Hurvitz&#8217; 1976 version is presented here, slightly edited for consistency.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a>  Phonetic guess only.  Spelling is not verified.</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1046</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-10-30-t.mp3" length="9672873" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 28th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1042</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1042#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 1969 02:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hinayana & Mahayana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lotus Sutra]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1042</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi LOTUS SŪTRA, LECTURE NO. 5 [Third Lotus Sūtra Series] Tuesday Evening, October 28, 1969 Zen Mountain Center Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-28 (note: the audio speeds up as the recording goes along) &#160; I think there must be many things to prepare before you understand—before you read Lotus Sūtra.  First of all, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_1044" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 624px"><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SR0062.jpg"><img class="size-large wp-image-1044 " title="SR0062" src="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SR0062-1024x698.jpg" alt="" width="614" height="419" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Suzuki-roshi with students near Tassajara</p></div>
<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi</strong></p>
<p><strong><em>LOTUS SŪTRA</em></strong><strong>, LECTURE NO. 5</strong></p>
<p><strong>[Third <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>Series]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Tuesday Evening, October 28, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong>Zen Mountain Center</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-10-28-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-28</a></p>
<p>(note: the audio speeds up as the recording goes along)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I think there must be many things to prepare before you understand—before you read <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.  First of all, we say always, you know, &#8220;Mahāyāna&#8221; or &#8220;Hīnayāna.&#8221;  So what actually means by Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna is one of the many things which you should know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Buddha originally left teaching some time for some special people.  But even so, people who listen to that—hear the Buddha&#8217;s teaching maybe [have] different understanding, according to the ability of the people who listen—who hear him.  So actually there are many various kinds of teaching in Buddha&#8217;s teaching.  We say, &#8220;Buddha&#8217;s teaching,&#8221; but—in one word—but there are many various kinds of teaching included.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But naturally, Buddha&#8217;s teaching was divided in two—as his disciple or his descendant naturally divided in two, you know, as it is so always.  They were divided in some logical student and some more conservative ones.  The conservative one was so-called-it Hīnayāna or Theravāda.  Even 100 [years] after—100 [years] after Buddha passed away, there is—there were some even [?].  Some radical students proposed to practice ten—ten more practice.  But some conservative students—Theravāda students—called him:  &#8220;He is heretic; he is not orthodox traditional—orthodoxical traditional students; that is not what Buddha said.&#8221;  In this was there was already some dispute.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And they had later a second meeting to—to—to unify Buddha&#8217;s teaching.  But, at the same time, some group had another meeting [laughs], you know.  In this way, there were Buddhist—Buddhists divided in two.  The conservative ones are mostly the ones who remembered Buddha&#8217;s teaching and who has—who had some record, and who had some complete traditional texts.  Radical ones more put emphasis on Buddha&#8217;s intention to leave his teaching:  why Buddha, you know, left this kind of teaching.  That was the most important point for the radical ones.  They didn&#8217;t, you know, stick to scriptures only.  And the conservative ones, you know, who wanted to oppose radical ones, more and more systematized Buddha&#8217;s teaching, you know, and analyzed Buddha&#8217;s teaching in various way.  That is so-called-it Hīnayāna teaching.</p>
<p><span id="more-1042"></span></p>
<p>The Hīnayāna teaching, in one word, [is] the teaching which— Hīnayāna teaching in one word, we say, in Japanese, <em>Sanze-jitsu-u-hottai-gōu.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>   It means that:<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>  <em>sanze</em> is three [worlds]—past, present, and future is <em>sanze</em>.  And <em>hottai</em> is the teachings—teachings analyzed our mind and—our mind and body, or subjective world and objective world in various way, like five <em>skandha, </em>you know, five <em>skandha</em>, or—do you know the teaching of five <em>skandha</em>?  In <em>Prajñāpāramitā</em> [it] said, &#8220;Five <em>skandha</em> is empty—are empty.&#8221;  That five <em>skandha</em> or six mind, or seventh mind, or eighth mind—that is how they analyzed our subjective and objective world.  And those, you know, elements were called <em>dharma</em>.  And, in China, they counted in 75 or 100.  And those, you know, elements supposed to be some—[are] supposed to be substantial things.  The Hīnayāna students thought in that way.  And it is always exist in that way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But, you know, it is—originally, you know, those elements were result of the—result of our analyze, you know.  We—they analyze our mind—how we—our mind works, you know.  And they counted up the—in 75 [dharmas] or something like that.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>As you know, you know, Buddha&#8217;s teaching originally—the most important teaching for Buddhist is—everything changes is the most important teaching [laughs].  It is rather difficult, maybe, but if you hear it over and over again, naturally you will understand—eventually you will understand.  Everything changes is the fundamental teaching of Buddhism, as you know.  Nothing has self-nature.  But when conservative Theravāda students [were] interested in more and more analyzing Buddha&#8217;s teaching, and trying to authorize his teaching [as] something which was given to them, and because the teaching are something valuable, they wanted to protect it.  While they are doing—making effort in that way, they—after all those effort, they set up something which does not change [laughs], you know—teaching—teaching does not change!  Teaching—&#8221;dharma&#8221; mean sometime &#8220;teaching,&#8221; and sometime &#8220;various being,&#8221; and it—it sometime it means &#8220;various element produced by analyze.&#8221;  And they—they put—they s- [partial word]—after all they said, those teaching does not change, and, at the same time, those elements which teaching denote does not change.  And there is actually some elements—some entity.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But that is not anymore true, you know.  That is not true.  We say &#8220;mind,&#8221; but where is mind?  [Laughs.]  Mind is not—is not some substantial thing.  We say &#8220;eyes,&#8221; you know.  Eyes—when we—when I was learning psychology, we started to learn how our—it was like physics, you know.  Teacher draw, you know, what do you—what do you call it—&#8221;eye&#8221;?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  Eyeball?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?  No.  This.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  [Unclear]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Round one [laughs].  Eyebulb?  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Students:</strong>  [Several suggestions at once.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Eyeball?  Eyeball is like [laughs, laughter].  Nerve—the—he, you know, draw nerves.  This connect to brain, you know—something like that [laughs].  But we say &#8220;eyes,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Eyes&#8221; is actually a part of skin [laughs].  And nose is also a part of skin.  And ears, to, you know.  So you may say, &#8220;This is eyes,&#8221; you know.  But strictly speaking, all those eyes and nose and mouth and everything is part of our skin.  Even our tongue is a part of skin.  But we tentatively, for convenience sake, [say] &#8220;This is tummy; this is eye; this is nose.&#8221;  That&#8217;s all, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So Buddha said [laughs], &#8220;There is no eyes.&#8221;  No such thing as eyes.  Tentatively, you know, this part of skin you may call it—call them &#8220;eye.&#8221;  This part is nose.  And this part is ear.  Actually, we—we have, you know, nose and mouth and everything, but it is not any particular thing.  There is some difference.  So we—we—we—we may say, &#8220;There is eyes,&#8221; but at the same time, even though it is different from other part, but originally it is a part of it.  There is no borderline between your nose and eyes or ears.  From where [laughs] is it, you know, belongs to ear?  And from where your nose start?  No one knows.  Maybe someone may say &#8220;from here&#8221; [laughs], someone may say &#8220;from here.&#8221;  All your way from your tummy to—it will come to here.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  What—what smells when you [1-2 words unclear]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  That is function—function of the—some particular part of skin [laughs, laughter].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  [Entire question unclear.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Skin.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student:</strong>  Skin.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  I&#8217;m just—right now I&#8217;m—maybe you can hear it as a—a kind of joke.  But it is true, you know.  We understand, you know, our—in Mahāyāna teaching, we understand things from various angle, and standpoint we take is very free, you know.  This way and that way.  Someone—if someone say yes, someone say no.  And yes and no they discussed until yes and no become same.  That is more Mahāyāna way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And moreover, you know, the Hīnayāna students, when they talked about mind, you know—mind is also, you know, something which exist [as] some substantial thing.  You may call it—some people may call it &#8220;soul&#8221; or something, you know.  But no one knows the exact terminology of &#8220;soul.&#8221;  And if, you know, if—soul is actually, you know—mind is actually—you think you have mind, you know, but no one knows exactly what kind of substance the mind is.  No one knows.  But we—because we have various function, you know, so someone must be there, you know, who has—which has that kind of function.  That is mind.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So if you say so, it—it is too much—too far [laughs], when you don&#8217;t know what—what kind of thing it is—whether there is mind or not.  Before you know that, you say here is—there is mind, and that—or soul.  And that soul or mind is always some substantial thing.  And it does not change.  It is—it was like that in past time, and—and it will be like this.  It will exist in future as it exist right now.  So they said <em>hottai</em><a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>—&#8221;everything exist in past and present and future.&#8221;  They reached this kind of conclusion after trying to authorize Buddha&#8217;s teaching in various way.  They went too far, and they forgot original—the most important teaching of Buddha.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is what has happened to Buddha&#8217;s teaching after Buddha passed away.  Some people, you know, didn&#8217;t feel so good when some student authorize Buddha&#8217;s teaching in this way—in that way, because Buddha&#8217;s teaching more and more became far away from the original teaching.  That was actually what has happened to Buddhism.  That is why Mahāyāna school became strong—stronger.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In Mahāyāna teaching, they, in word—in one word, his teaching—their teaching was [that] present—present things—things in this moment exist, but it doesn&#8217;t—nothing exist in past or future, or, you know, in past or future it doesn&#8217;t actually—things doesn&#8217;t exist, actually.  That is quite opposite, you know, statement—to destroy their—Hīnayāna statement of Hīnayāna students they—they said <em>Kami mutai</em> <em>genzai jitsu-u</em>.<a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, as you must have realized, in, you know, <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>, they put emphasis on present.  That which exist in present—present time exist in past and future.  But that past and future is quite different past and future of tomorrow—tomorrow&#8217;s past and future.  And future&#8217;s past and future—yesterday&#8217;s past and future.  That is more Mahāyāna&#8217;s mystic understanding.  May be the same, but for us right now it—it is different.  That is more Mahāyāna understanding of time and things.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Mahāyāna students observed things [as] one whole living being, you know.  Everything is just one whole being.  Like, you know, I said, you know, we say &#8220;eyes and nose and mouth,&#8221; but it is actually one whole body, and those are a part of it.  So to—if you want to experience one whole being there is no other way to experience it in this moment.  That is more Mahāyāna teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Body and mind is the same, you know.  Living being—there is one living being which is called—you know, I don&#8217;t know what is the name of it, but—one whole being.  It has various activities.  And one activity—if we classify the activity of big being, it may be mental activity, and it may be—the other will be the physical.  But it is one whole living being.  That is more Mahāyāna teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So when, you know, when someone stick to some idea or some substantial idea of A or B, you know, that is more Hīnayāna understanding.  When we put emphasis on interrelationship between various thing, that is more Mahāyāna understanding.  And that is more faithful to—Mahāyāna understanding is more faithful to original teaching of Buddha:  self<span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>ness, and everything changes.  &#8220;Everything changes&#8221; means one whole being is taking always activity.  Continuously they are taking activity.  That is original teaching of Buddha.  And Mahāyāna teaching is more faithful to the original teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Attitude of the student is also different.  The Hīnayāna teach- [partial word]—student put emphasis on self-realization.  And Mahāyāna Buddhist put more emphasis on helping others.  And to help others is—why we should help others, and how we help others, when you want to help others—you—we should know—we should have wisdom.  That wisdom is based on everything is one whole being—one whole living being.  So, you know, to help myself—if you want to help ourself—himself in its true sense, you should help others too.  And to help others means to help himself.  That is more Mahāyāna understanding or attitude of practicing Buddhist way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>One is very idealistic.  The other is very practical.  But if you read <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> you may say that is not so practical.  But, you know, if you seize the underlying thought, you may [be] amazed how practical teaching—was hidden in that kind of parable.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know what kind of, you know, understanding you have.  So tonight, you know, I will not talk any more, but I want you to ask some questions, and I want to answer why.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Rōshi, could you tell us [rest of sentence unclear].  If I put my hand in front of my eyes, you know—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  —what—what sees it [?]?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Your skin see [laughs].  I—what I said, you know, &#8220;no nose&#8221; means, you know, if you say, you know, according to—for an instance, according to Hīnayāna teaching, you know, Theravāda teaching, there is eyes.  Eyes has its—it is one of the important element of our being.  And that is more independent element, and more substantial thing, and something which has self-nature.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Self&#8221; means, you know, something which has, you know, self.  Buddhism is self- [partial word]—teaching of self<span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>ness.  But when—I must explain [laughs] this point too—mmm—let me see.  Buddhist teaching is teaching of self<span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>ness, but Buddha didn&#8217;t establish that kind of new teaching.  But he wanted to correct their misunderstanding when they say &#8220;self,&#8221; you know.  So because he doesn&#8217;t want to establish any teaching, you know, so if someone—when someone say &#8220;self,&#8221; and that self means something proper, then Buddha may accept it.  &#8220;Yes, we have self,&#8221; he may say.  If the &#8220;self&#8221;—if some appropriate meaning the words &#8220;self&#8217; has, Buddha will say, &#8220;Yeah, there is self.&#8221;  But when they have misunderstanding about self, he says, &#8220;No, there is no such thing, self.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Self&#8221; means, you know, to have—when Buddha did not accept &#8220;self,&#8221; that &#8220;self&#8221; means some—something which has self-nature, and which has some special substance.  That is self.  So something which has its own nature, you know—it own independent nature.  That is self.  You know, when you say &#8220;self,&#8221; you have your own character.  And that is maybe a kind of, you know, nature—your own nature.  So you call—you—you say you have self.  In the same way, Buddha—when Buddha said &#8220;no self,&#8221; he means—by &#8220;self&#8221; he meant some independent nature which is quite different—quite different from other nature.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And accordingly, because of that nature, it has some characteristic—independent character.  That is self.  And this kind of self, we attach to it, you know.  And because of this kind of self, we make various mistake, ignoring [laughs] others&#8217; self.  You become very, very independent, and you become very selfish because of this kind of understanding.  So Buddha says &#8220;no self.&#8221;  You say you have your own nature, but that is also universal nature.  And you have your own characteristic, but [it is] little bit different from other one [?], as many things is not exactly the same—[2-4 words unclear].  But you should not point out some characteristic which is quite different from others.  Mostly your character is the same as others&#8217;.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So that you say you have independent nature is wrong.  That you have quite different character or characteristic, that is also—<span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> wrong, but not complete.  That is what Buddha said.  So what Buddha says is—point up—point at our misunderstanding.  Do you understand?  What he is talking about [is] reality—things as it is.  If someone make some misunderstanding, he points at many things, and fundamental teaching is &#8220;everything changes&#8221; and self<span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>ness, because most people thinks things has its own nature.  But there is no such nature exist.  It is based on universal nature.  Oh.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[The poor sound quality of the rest of the lecture makes accurate transcription impossible.  The batteries in the original recorder appear to have faded.]</em></p>
<p>_________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape.  Verbatim transcript by Bill Redican (7/5/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  The view of the Sarvāstivāda school that since the dharmas exist in a real sense in the three worlds, the substance of dharmas is real. Chinese: 三世實有法體恆有: three times truly exist, thing’s (dharmas) essence always exists.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  The remaining two terms are:  <em>jitsu-u</em>:  reality; <em>gōu</em>: appears to be equivalent to <em>kō, </em>&#8220;always&#8221; (Nelson No. 1683).  Later (p. 4), Suzuki-rōshi translates the phrase as &#8220;everything exist in past and present and future.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  <em>Sanze-jitsu-u-hottai-gōu</em>, from pp. 1–2.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [4] 過未無體現在實有: Past and future non-existent, the present truly exists.</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1042</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/69-10-28-t.mp3" length="8657105" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 25th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1037</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1037#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 1969 02:30:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Buddha-nature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lotus Sutra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transmission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi LOTUS SŪTRA, LECTURE NO. 4:  CHAPTER II [Third Lotus Sūtra Series] Saturday Evening, October 25, 1969 Zen Mountain Center Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-25 (note: the audio speeds up as the recording goes along) &#160; Last night[1]  I explained the most important part of this chapter [II], which runs: &#160; &#8220;Shāriputra—&#8221; &#160; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi</strong></p>
<p><strong><em>LOTUS SŪTRA</em></strong><strong>, LECTURE NO. 4:  CHAPTER II</strong></p>
<p><strong>[Third <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>Series]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Saturday Evening, October 25, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong>Zen Mountain Center</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/69-10-25-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-25</a></p>
<p>(note: the audio speeds up as the recording goes along)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Last night<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>  I explained the most important part of this chapter [II], which runs:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Shāriputra—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is another translation,<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>  translated from Chinese text<a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>  comparing to Sanskrit original text.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Shāriputra, the Thus-Come One—Thus-Come One can by a variety of distinction skillfully preach the dharma.  His word are gentle, gladdening many hearers.  Shāriputra, to take the—to take the essential and—to take the essential and speak of it.  As for the immeasurable and unlimited dharmas that have never been before, the Buddha has perfected them all.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And here—this is most important part:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Cease, Shāriputra.  We need no more speak.  Why is that?  As for the prime, rare, hard-to-understand dharma which the Buddha has perfected, only a buddha and buddha can exalt [exhaust?] the reality of the dharma—namely,</p>
<p>the suchness of dharma,</p>
<p>the suchness of their marks,</p>
<p>the suchness of their nature,</p>
<p>the suchness of their substance,</p>
<p>the suchness of their powers,</p>
<p>the suchness of their functions,</p>
<p>the suchness of their causes,</p>
<p>the suchness of their conditions,</p>
<p>the suchness of their effects,</p>
<p>the suchness of their retribution, and</p>
<p>the absolute equality of their beginning and end.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And here there is important words.  Reality of these dharmas—reality of these dharmas—reality of these dharma I explained last night:  how things exist, and namely suchness of the dharma, and the suchness of their marks, and suchness of their nature, suchness of their substance.  But all those things in word [are] another version of &#8220;things changes and things has no self-nature.&#8221;  And things are originally organic:  one whole being, which makes one whole lives [life?].  That is the fundamental teaching of this sūtra.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And to have this kind of understanding—view of life, view of nature—is the Buddha&#8217;s wisdom.  And, in this chapter—in this sūtra they—Buddha put emphasis on this point.  And I refer to the—and I refer to <em>Shōbōgenzō</em>:<a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>   &#8220;Only dharma—only buddha and buddha can exalt [exhaust?] the reality of these dharma.&#8221;  &#8220;Only buddha and buddha can exalt [exhaust?] the reality of dharmas.&#8221;  This is very important.</p>
<p><span id="more-1037"></span></p>
<p>In <em>Shōbōgenzō </em> there is one chapter just for this words:  &#8220;only buddha.&#8221;<a title="" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>   <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Buddha</span> understand buddha.  That is actually how we transmit Buddhism, you know:  When disciple become disciple, in its true sense, disciple may have transmission.  When disciple became really disciple, there is no other person but—but him.  He is the only—he represent all being[s] because everything exist in—everything exist has interdependency to the rest of the being[s].  So he include—his life include everything.  And teacher&#8217;s everyday life include everything.  Then there is no difference between teacher and disciple.  When teacher and disciple understand things—dharma in this way, there is—although there is nothing to transmit, but teacher and disciple can share the same life.  That is how we transmit our way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In Japanese, <em>yuibutsu-yobutsu.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a><em>   Yuibutsu-yobutsu.</em>  Ot- [partial word]—it means that &#8220;buddha with buddha&#8221;—&#8221;only buddha with only buddha.&#8221;  The—this is famous term—<em>yuibutsu-yobutsu</em>—famous term for Sōtō priests, especially.  <em>Yuibutsu-yobutsu-nainōgūjin</em>.<a title="" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>   It is a kind of stock term for us.  Only buddha—one buddha exalt [exhaust?] everything, you know.  Always one buddha exalt [exhaust?] everything.  Only buddha include everything.  Only buddha—only one activity exalt [exhaust?] all the activity in the world.  This is, you know, this point should be understood from various angle.  Then this understanding will be extended—the extend this—the teaching of this point will be the whole sūtra.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So skillfulness or means is not second principle.  All the activity which is called &#8220;skillfulness of buddha,&#8221; all the dharma which was left by Buddha with skillfulness is, you know, nothing but the real teaching itself—the first principle itself.  When we practice this skillfulness in its true sense, that is nothing but the—all the dharma we have as a Buddhist.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So skillfulness is not any more skillfulness.  But usually when we say &#8220;skillfulness,&#8221; you need some special practice.  And because of this practice, you will attain some special teaching—dharma, like the first—so-called-it first principle.  But for—for Zen there is no first principle.  What we have is just skillful means, which we practice moment-after-moment.  That is the first principle itself.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But, you know, how we attain this kind of skillfulness—not &#8220;skillfulness,&#8221; but—its—it depend on how seriously we practice this.  Only when you are involved in your activity, moment after moment completely, that is what we mean by &#8220;skillfulness.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And as long as you make your best—even though you make mistake, that is also skillfulness, according to this sūtra.  But usually, you know, they don&#8217;t understand in that way.  &#8220;If you make some mistake, that is not skillfulness.  That is not good skill.  Until you have,&#8221; you know,<br />
&#8220;—do something without any mistake, you have no dharma, or you have no first principle.&#8221;  That is usual understand[ing], and that is more like <em>shrāvakayāka</em><a title="" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a><em> </em> way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You know, here in this translation there is many words &#8220;voice-hearer.&#8221;  Voice-hearer means, in Japanese, <em>shōmon.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>   <em>Shōmon</em> is the—actually Buddha&#8217;s disciple who—who practiced Buddha&#8217;s way with Buddha.  And they think Buddha was great but we are not so great.  This is, actually—this was mistake.  So even Shāriputra, Buddha said, you haven&#8217;t—he didn&#8217;t actually say so, but—after long long time, this sūtra supposed to be told by Buddha the last time.  This is the last sūtra for the—for his disciple.  And after they—his disciple attained no-outflow stage—<em>muro-ka</em><a title="" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>—in Chinese <em>muro-ka</em>—the—the final stage, Buddha said, you know, &#8220;The teaching which I am going to tell you will not be understood by you&#8221; [laughs].  So they [were] confused, you know.  &#8220;After attaining highest stage, you don&#8217;t understand.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Why</span> he said so is because they thought, &#8220;We are <em>arhat</em>.  [We are] next to, maybe, Buddha.  But we are not Buddha, but we are <em>arhat</em>.&#8221;  So that was mistake, you know.  Even [when] he started Buddhism, originally he was Buddha, you know.  So there is no difference between—originally there is no difference between Buddha and his disciples.  This understanding was missing, so that as long as you attach to this kind of dualistic idea—who is buddha and who is not buddha, who is perfect and who is not perfect—you will not understand this teaching.  Or you will not have the Buddha&#8217;s view of life, or Buddha&#8217;s wisdom.  Or you will not have <em>shohō-jissō</em>.<a title="" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>   You will not have &#8220;actual reality of the being,&#8221; in which there is—everything is—has same value.  Nothing can be separated from the other.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So this teaching is completely different [from that] which was told by Buddha in some dualistic way.  That is why Buddha said, &#8220;You will not understand this teaching.&#8221;  Those points were the points I explained last night—in my last lecture.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time, the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this doctrine, spoke forth—spoke forth <em>gāthā</em>s,<a title="" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>  saying:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The same thing [as previous prose lines] is told by Buddha in style of <em>gāthā:</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;The Hero of the World is incalculable.</p>
<p>Among gods, worldlings—among gods, worldlings,</p>
<p>And all variety of living beings,</p>
<p>There is none who can know the buddha[s].</p>
<p>As to the Buddha&#8217;s strength, his fearlessness,</p>
<p>His deliverance, and his <em>samadhi</em>s, as well as</p>
<p>The other dharms[s] of Buddha,</p>
<p>There is none who can fathom them.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I think you have to understand first in a dualistic way.  Buddha&#8217;s teaching is very profound—something more than he says.  Because it is—it include our actual life which we have—we have had, and which we have, and which we will have, moment after—which will continue moment after moment in various meanings.  So no one can—there is no one who can fathom it—fathom them.  This is very important point.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Formerly, following numberless buddhas,</p>
<p>He fully trod the various paths,</p>
<p>Those dharma are very profound and subtle,</p>
<p>Hard to see and hard to understand.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Formerly, not only in this life but also his former life, in various way, following numberless buddhas, he fully trod the various paths.  It is actually so.  It is not just, you know, story, because his life include everyone&#8217;s life.  And when Buddha is Buddha, no—there is no other buddha, and there is no other disciple.  There is none who can fathom them, like eyes cannot see eyes.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Formerly, following numberless buddhas,</p>
<p>He fully trod the various paths,</p>
<p>These dharmas, very profound and subtle,</p>
<p>Hard to see and hard to understand.</p>
<p>Throughout countless millions of <em>kalpa</em>s—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Having trodden those various paths on the ground of the way—or here there is some correction:<a title="" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a>  &#8220;On the,&#8221; maybe, &#8220;platform of the path.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;On the platform of the path, he was able to achieve the fruit:</p>
<p>This is—I fully know.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Here is some—some words to explain.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Throughout countless millions of <em>kalpa</em>s</p>
<p>Having trodden those various paths;</p>
<p>On the platform of the path—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is, you know—or, &#8220;ground of the way.&#8221;  Translated in this way.  And in Sanskrit, <em>bodhi-manda</em>—or some people say <em>bodhi-mandala</em>.  Or maybe <em>bodhi-manda</em> is more—is correct.  It means the place—in India, you know, or—when—in this sūtra it means where Buddha attain—place where the Buddha attained enlightenment.  And this is also important point in various sūtra.  In<em> Vimalakīrti Sūtra</em> we have this words in some different meaning—connotation.  Here it means the place he—Buddha attained enlightenment.  Hmm.  In its narrow sense, you know—or original meaning of <em>bodhi-manda</em> means—<em>manda</em> means the—some holy place.  <em>Bodhi-manda</em> means place—holy place where <em>bodhi</em><a title="" href="#_ftn14">[14]</a>  was achieved.  So where Buddha attained enlightenment, like Bodhi—under Bodhi tree, that is <em>bodhi-manda</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And when people understand or people say this is—the translation of holy <em>mandala</em> means—<em>mandala</em> is—you know, when you make—I don&#8217;t know how you make cheese out of milk, you know.  At first you will take out the essence of the milk, getting rid of water.  And you may—you will make a cheese out of it.  And in surface of—if you see the surface of the cheese, you will have some picture like <em>mandala</em> which you cannot tell what—exactly what it is like, you know, Buddhist <em>mandala</em>.  That is <em>mandala</em>, which is very essential of something—essence of something, and which is very pure, and which is very beautiful.  That is <em>mandala</em>.  So <em>bodhi-mandala</em> is <em>mandala</em> of pure teaching, where Buddha may practice his way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And later, in its wide sense, wherever it is, if we practice our way, that is holy place.  In Japanese or Chinese [it is] translated like <em>dōjō</em>—&#8221;practice hall.&#8221;  And later, in China, there were—there—they built many <em>dōjō</em> for some special practice, like zazen—zendō, you know.  Zendō is special building to practice our way, or <em>dōjō</em> for chanting Amida Buddha&#8217;s name.  That kind of special building was built in China by various people, or various supporters of the sect.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But here it means &#8220;the place he attained enlightenment.&#8221;  On the path—on the—so, you can say, on—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Under the Bodhi tree, he was able to achieve the fruit:</p>
<p>This I fully knows.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, you know, so according to the—according to Dōgen-zenji, you know, where we practice zazen, that is <em>dōjō</em>, and that is the <em>bodhi-manda.</em>  Not only under—so everywhere will be <em>bodhi-mandala</em> if someone practice zazen there.  That is actually what Dōgen-zenji meant.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;As to such great fruits and retribution as these,</p>
<p>Such varied doctrines of nature and marks,</p>
<p>I and the buddha of the ten directions</p>
<p>Are the only ones who can know these things.</p>
<p>These dharmas cannot be demonstrated;</p>
<p>Signs of words are quiescent in—in them.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[Repeats.]</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>Sign of words are quiescent in them.</p>
<p>Among the remaining kinds of living beings</p>
<p>There are none who can understand them—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is impossible to understand fully because it is something beyond signs of words.  And yet, you know, wherever we are, there <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span> way, there <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span> dharma.  That is actual renunciation, because we cannot stick to human nature or buddha-nature.  Human nature—if you say &#8220;human nature,&#8221; no, that is buddha-nature.  If you say &#8220;buddha-nature,&#8221; no, that is human nature.  You shouldn&#8217;t be discouraged, you know, by your human nature.  You shouldn&#8217;t be attached to buddha-nature.  That is renunciation from buddha-nature <span style="text-decoration: underline;">and</span> human nature.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>If—if un- [partial word]—if you understand, and if you practice our way in that way, there is the Buddha&#8217;s teaching in its true sense, which is beyond signs of words.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Signs of words are quiescent in them.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is, I think, good words.  I didn&#8217;t, you know, I didn&#8217;t know.  This is also famous words.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>[Suzuki-rōshi whispers to himself in Japanese.]  <em>Jaku metsu.</em><a title="" href="#_ftn15">[15]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>[Laughs.]  In Japan, when we have funeral service—funeral procession, we have four banners.  In one of them it says, &#8220;Death&#8221;—or &#8220;Death and extinction.&#8221;  &#8220;With death and extinction, we enjoy&#8221;—or, &#8220;We enjoy death and extinction.&#8221;  So [laughs] some people may think Buddhists like death and extinction.  They [may say]:  &#8220;Buddhism is very—very, very negative,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Buddhist has very negative attitude.&#8221;  But <em>jaku</em> is &#8220;calmness,&#8221; and <em>metsu</em> is &#8220;extinction.&#8221;  The calmness as dead person.  And extinction of all the desires, like dead person.  And we enjoy this.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But it—it does not mean to annihilate all our desires, you know.  It means to go beyond those desires, or to go beyond even the extinction of all desires, or Buddha, who—or arhatship.  That is real extinction of everything.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Sign of words are quiescent—quiescent in them.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is, I think, some words you should, you know—you should remember.  And you should study thoroughly what will be the—the state of absolute calmness.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Among the remaining kinds of remaining beings</p>
<p>There are none who can understand them,</p>
<p>Except for multitude of bodhisattvas</p>
<p>Whose power of faith is firm.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[Repeats.]</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>Except for multitude of bodhisattvas</p>
<p>Whose power of faith is firm.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Except [for] bodhisattvas,&#8221; you know, because this is, maybe because of this is the sūtra for Mahāyāna Buddhist, or this teaching is for bodhisattvas, you know.  This is actually express bodhisattva&#8217;s mind or Mahāyāna spirit.  So Mahāyāna students may understand it, it says.  There is some, you know—some discrimination:  Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna.  But this is the sūtra which was set up by Mahāyāna Buddhist.  I don&#8217;t know who did it, but it can&#8217;t be helped to have some discrimination.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So Dōgen, you know, make this kind of understanding one step further, where there is no Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Except for the multitude of bodhisattvas</p>
<p>Whose power of faith is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">firm</span>.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So bodhisattva&#8217;s, you know, way is to have strong faith in our buddha-nature.  By the way, I was very much interested in the discussion we have last four days—[October] 24<sup>th</sup>.  Dōgen-zenji, you know, talks—talked about that kind of things in <em>Shōbōgenzō,</em> so I, you know—I felt as if we have many Dōgen-zenji here [laughs] talking about same thing.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;The multitude of Buddha&#8217;s disciple</p>
<p>Formerly made offering to the buddhas.</p>
<p>All their outflow now exhausted,</p>
<p>They inhabit this last body.</p>
<p>Such men as these,</p>
<p>Their strength—their strength inresistible—inresistible—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[Repeats.]</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>The multitude of the Buddha&#8217;s disciple</p>
<p>Formerly made effort [offering] to the buddha.</p>
<p>All their outflow now exhausted,</p>
<p>They inhabit this last body.</p>
<p>Such men as these,</p>
<p>Their strength—their strength irresistible—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is, you know, actually this part [is] talking about <em>shrāvaka</em>s—Buddha&#8217;s disciples who attained arhatship, or <em>pratyekabuddha</em>s, which is called Hīnayāna Buddhist.  &#8220;The multitude of the Buddha&#8217;s disciple&#8221;—&#8221;Buddha&#8217;s disciple&#8221; sometime—&#8221;Buddha&#8217;s disciple&#8221; in this sūtra means sometime <em>shrāvaka</em>s, and sometime—sometime include <em>pratyeka</em> too, and sometime means Buddha&#8217;s disciple who were intimately served him, or some—sometime Buddha&#8217;s disciple when—in this sūtra when they say &#8220;Buddha&#8217;s disciple,&#8221; he may be a priest, in contrast with layman.  So <em>shrāvaka </em>or <em>bhikshu</em><a title="" href="#_ftn16">[16]</a><em> …</em>  <em>[Sentence not finished.  Tape turned over.]  … </em>or some &#8220;hearer&#8221; sometime, in general.  So I don&#8217;t know exactly who they are when they say here &#8220;Buddha&#8217;s disciple.&#8221;  If I check Sanskrit words, maybe I can tell.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;The multitude of the Buddha&#8217;s disciple—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Maybe Buddha&#8217;s—&#8221;hearer of the Buddha&#8217;s teaching,&#8221; especially <em>shrāvaka</em>s and <em>pratyeka—shrāvaka</em>s and <em>pratyeka</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Formerly made offering to the buddhas.</p>
<p>All their outflow now exhausted—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is actually <em>arhat</em>, who has no evil desires.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;They inhabit this last body.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So those who have fruit of practice—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Such men as these,</p>
<p>Their strength is irresistible—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Although, you know, their strength is wonderful—irresistible, even so, they will not understand it as long as they have dualistic idea, or as long as they try to attain something.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Even if they filled the world,</p>
<p>If all were like Shāriputra—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Shāriputra is now the—now representing all, you know, disciple who have—who had dualistic understanding—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;If all were like Shāriputra—</p>
<p>And if, exhausting their thoughts, all together calculated,</p>
<p>Could not fathom the Buddha&#8217;s knowledge.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Buddha&#8217;s knowledge, in its true sense, is not knowledge who can understand in term of words or sign.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Even if they filled the ten directions,</p>
<p>All of them like Shāriputra</p>
<p>And the remaining disciples,</p>
<p>If, further, filling the <em>ksetra</em>s of ten directions—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Ksetra</em>s means &#8220;area&#8221; or &#8220;country.&#8221;<a title="" href="#_ftn17">[17]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;—filling the <em>ksetra</em>s of ten directions</p>
<p>And exhausting their thoughts, they were to calculate together—<br />
they were to calculate together,</p>
<p>They still could not know it.</p>
<p>If <em>pratyekabuddha</em>s of sharp intelligence,</p>
<p>Inhabiting a final body without outflows,</p>
<p>Are to fill even—were to fill even the zephyrs [spheres?] of the<br />
ten directions,</p>
<p>In their number like to bamboo groves,</p>
<p>And if, putting their minds together</p>
<p>For millions of incalculate <em>kalpa</em>s,</p>
<p>They wish to think on the real knowledge of the Buddha,</p>
<p>They [there] would be none who could know the slight—<br />
slight portion of—thereof.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Inhabiting final body without outflows&#8221;—this is actually means <em>arhat</em>.  &#8220;Without outflows&#8221;—&#8221;outflows&#8221; means, you know—this is a kind of special term—who have no desires—who have no—who keep precepts perfectly—who keeps perfect precepts without—without outflows.  They are not like basket [laughs], you know, or they are not old container which has many—which leaks a lot [laughs].  That is actually what it means.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And next part:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;If bodhisattva who were recently launched their thoughts<br />
towards—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Excuse me.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;If bodhisattva who have recently launched their thoughts</p>
<p>Who have made offering to—who have made offering to<br />
countless buddhas,</p>
<p>Who understand fully the direction of the various doctrines,</p>
<p>And who also can well preach the dharma—who also can<br />
well preach the dharma,</p>
<p>Were, in the manner of ears of hemps, bamboo, and rice,</p>
<p>To fill the <em>ksetra</em>s of the ten directions,</p>
<p>And if, with one mind and by resort to their suitable wisdom—<br />
subtle wisdom,</p>
<p>For <em>kalpa</em>s as numerous as Ganges sand,</p>
<p>They were all to think and calculate together,</p>
<p>They still could not understand the Buddha&#8217;s knowledge.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Same thing as I read it [already].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;If bodhisattvas who do not backslide—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Backslide&#8221; is, you know—it means that if you really, you know, experience something in its true sense, if that experience is very natural, and very accurate, and outcome of the—your buddha-nature, that experience will never die.  It is part of Buddha&#8217;s—Buddha&#8217;s himself&#8217;s life.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And this is very true.  For an instance, you know, you may—you don&#8217;t know actually why you came to Tassajara, maybe.  Maybe some of you think, &#8220;I—for this reason I came to Tassajara.  For this reason I am practicing here,&#8221; you may say.  But, you know, things does not happen as you expect [laughs]—as you think, you know, as you expected.  As I said, even though, you know, you have full under- [partial word]—explanation of the enlightenment experience, the experience—enlightenment [laughs] experience you have will not be the same as you thought before you attain enlightenment.  But actually, the reason why is actually it is not you who [laughs], you know—originally it was not you who was practicing zazen.  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Who</span> was practicing to zazen, according to Dōgen?  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Buddha</span> was practicing zazen, not you.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So accordingly, what you will have as a result will not be the same thing as your small mind expected.  If something like that happen, as a result of pure practice, as a result of real practice, that result will not vanish at all because that is so—Dōgen-zenji said, &#8220;Wisdom seek for wisdom.&#8221;  Buddha, you know—because of Buddha, Buddha will appear.  So Buddha, you know, result [in] Buddha.  Same Buddha will be resulted.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So, &#8220;Wisdom seek for wisdom.&#8221;  That kind of wisdom is wisdom who—who—which has no slide-back.  Some attainment you attained with some intention, you know, will slide back when your intention is not so strong any more.  That is a kind of dualistic attainment you attain by your small mind.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So the point is when you practice real practice, you should give up all the selfish idea.  You should just practice zazen for sake of zazen.  You should be completely involved in, in other word, practice—whatever practice it may be.  That is the point, and that is the practice—the attainment.  No slide-back.  This is important—<em>futaiten</em><a title="" href="#_ftn18">[18]</a>—important words—words.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;If bodhisattvas who do not backslide,</p>
<p>In number like to Ganges sands,</p>
<p>Were with one mind—were with one mind to think and seek<br />
together,</p>
<p>They still could not know it.</p>
<p>I further proclaim to you, Shāriputra,</p>
<p>That that which is without outflows—that which is without<br />
outflows, beyond reckoning and discussion,</p>
<p>The extremely profound and subtle dharma,</p>
<p>I have already got completely.</p>
<p>Only I know its mark,</p>
<p>As do the buddha—buddhas of the ten directions.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>He says:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;As to the—as—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Excuse me.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;As do the buddha of ten directions.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Only I know its marks, its feature, its, you know, its way—how exist.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Excuse me, I must repeat it:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;I further proclaim to you, Shāriputra,</p>
<p>That that which is without outflow, beyond reckoning and<br />
discussion,</p>
<p>The extremely profound and subtle dharma,</p>
<p>I have already got completely.</p>
<p>Only I know its marks—only <span style="text-decoration: underline;">I</span> know its marks,</p>
<p>As do the buddhas of the ten directions.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Sometime he says &#8220;only I,&#8221; but sometime he says &#8220;the buddhas of the ten directions,&#8221; or sometime he refers to Buddha in future, like Maitreya Buddha.  But when we say &#8220;Maitreya Buddha,&#8221; there is no other Buddha.  When we say &#8220;Shākyamuni Buddha,&#8221; there is no other Buddha than Shākyamuni Buddha.  When you say, &#8220;I am Buddha,&#8221; there is no other Buddha.  That is our understanding.  Each buddha include the rest of the buddha.  So [it seems that] there may be many Buddhas at the same time, [but] actually there is one Buddha in reality, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So one and many:  We have one buddha and many buddhas.  There is no contradiction when we understand in this way.  Did you understand [laughs]?  There is no contradiction.  Many would—yes, many would [say], &#8220;One Buddha, yes, only one Buddha.&#8221;  Two buddhas?  &#8220;Yes, two buddhas.  Three buddhas, yes.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  There is no contradiction.  This is, you know, how we understand Buddha.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So this kind of understanding comes out of our real practice.  So he [says]:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;As do the buddhas of the ten direction.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And now there are many buddhas who understand this sūtra.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Shāriputra, it is to be known</p>
<p>That the Buddha—Buddha&#8217;s words are without<br />
discrepancy—discrepancy—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Buddha&#8217;s words—no discrepancy, you know.  Buddha&#8217;s words is always <span style="text-decoration: underline;">one</span>, you know.  There is no discrepancy.  There is no gap to insert some personal opinion.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;That towards the dharma preached by the Buddha</p>
<p>One should evince the strength of great faith.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is maybe a kind of faith, but the faith which is more—most realistic and most mystical [laughs] and most realistic, most profound and most common.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;After the World-Honored One&#8217;s dharma has subsisted long—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Here, you know, it—it makes strong and wise sense.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;After the World-Honored One&#8217;s dharma has subsisted long,</p>
<p>He must preach the truth.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know who he is, you know.  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">He</span> must preach the truth because there are many dharmas, many buddhas.  He must preach the truth.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;I proclaim to the multitude of voice-hearers—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is <em>shrāvaka</em>s.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;And to those who seek the vehicle of conditioned<br />
perceivers—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is <em>pratyekabuddhas. </em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;That I am the one who shall cause they cast off—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Ah, excuse me.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;That I am the one who shall cause them to cast off the bonds<br />
of suffering</p>
<p>And to stain—to attain nirvāna.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[Repeats.]</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I proclaim […]</p>
<p>That I am the one who shall cause them to cast off the bonds of        suffering</p>
<p>And to attain nirvāna.</p>
<p>The Buddha, by the power of expedient devices,</p>
<p>Demonstrates the teaching of three vehicles.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Three vehicles&#8221; means bodhisattva vehicle, and <em>shrāvaka</em>&#8216;s vehicle, and <em>pratyeka</em> vehicle.  <em>Pratyeka</em> is the second, and bodhisattva vehicle is the first, and <em>shrāvaka</em>&#8216;s—shrāvaka&#8217;s vehicle is the third.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Demonstrates the teaching of the three vehicles.</p>
<p>The living beings who are attached to this object and that—&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;To this object or the other,&#8221; maybe.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;Living beings who are attached to this object and that,</p>
<p>He attracted, thus enabling them to extract themselves.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Ah.  Excuse me.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;—enabling them to extricate themselves.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is the end of the—the stanza form of precedent part of the sūtra.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Oh.  Do you have some questions?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Through this kind of Mahāyāna teaching, Zen, you know, practice resulted.  I think we have to know this kind of sophisticated explain- [partial word]—expressing of the teaching.  The opposite way is Zen [laughs]:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;What is Buddha?&#8221;  [Laughs.]  &#8220;Cats and snake.&#8221;  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&#8220;What is Buddha?&#8221;  &#8220;A beautiful stone by the stream [laughs],</p>
<p>like this,&#8221; you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is Zen way.  But underlying spirit is not so—it is beautiful, you know, and the Buddhism is so simple it can be just one word.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Is the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> a Mahāyāna text?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yes.  The, you know, the—</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  It paints a picture of—of Buddha as kind of a superman, and a kind of a state which is pretty unattainable.  And in my past experience, that was a Hīnayāna kind of an approach.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  And I wonder how.  Could you explain that for me?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh, I explained it in last training period about that:  the history of, you know, how historical—idea of historical Buddha developed into Mahāyāna Buddha, like Nirmānakāya, Sambhogakāya, and Dharmakāya Buddha.  Like Christianity, you know, Buddhism extended, you know—idea of Buddha extended.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You may think it is—it is no so realistic, you know—Mahāyāna Buddhism is not so realistic.  But it is more realistic than [laughs]—than Hīnayāna, Theravāda Buddhism.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At first, you know, Buddhism—Buddha just helped his disciples and people, you know.  The teaching may be teaching of Buddha or teaching for disciples.  But in Mahāyāna Buddhism it include understanding of Buddha, and also the understanding of disciples&#8217; nature, which is called buddha-nature and which is actually one, not different.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So scale is more greater, and understanding is more deeper.  Of course, Buddha himself [gave] that kind of teaching, you know.  But for his disciple, you know, Buddha is someone who helped him, that&#8217;s all, you know.  So for Mahāyāna teaching, Buddha is something beyond historical Buddha, which contains truth within himself—not just hist- [partial word]—human being—not—not just a hero or a special kind of hero.  More innate nature of him, or more fundamental, general human nature was found in him.  That was development of the Buddhist thought from Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Rōshi, did the Theravādans use the name—they use the term Hīnayāna, or is that a Mahāyāna—?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  No, I don&#8217;t think so.  Theravāda:  Jōza-bu.<a title="" href="#_ftn19">[19]</a>   It means a group of priests who un- [partial word]—who knows—who remembers Buddha&#8217;s words, and later, you know, who make—made some system to the words so that they can remember—easily remember it:  putting number to the teaching, or, you know, correcting same kind of words in one place—classifying his teaching, you know.  And that is what he—they did later.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So the Buddha&#8217;s actual teaching silted down, you know, [to the] bottom of the [laughs] container, and they attach to the silt of the [laughs] drinking.  And they called—this is, you know—it is easily to understand, easily to study because it is—it was organized in some particular way so that we can remember it easily—so that we can understand it easily in term of dualistic, you know, sense.  But it is, at the same time, to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">kill</span> the life of, you know, actual teaching.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So Buddhist became more and more, you know, rigid and confined in some, you know, container.  He—&#8221;This is Buddhism.&#8221;  That was not so healthy development of the teaching.  So Mahāyāna Buddhist, you know, started to—to get the teaching out of the container and make it flow all over.  And this is—they started stirring up the water.  &#8220;This is the teaching [laughs]—true teaching.  And you have study this.&#8221;  That is more Mahāyāna teaching.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Skillful means—if nobody understands something such as [suchness?] Mahāyāna, and distinction between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna—is skillful means that nobody can understand it?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Skillfulness actually means—may mean, you know—usually may mean something [as a] means to point out something—something—some first principle or to give guidance to—to go to the goal, you know.  That is skillfulness.  And according to Mahāyāna idea, the sele- [partial word]—the teaching Buddha gave to his disciple is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">means</span>, you know, for some special person, not truth itself.  It is so, but it is so—when some hasty person who understand Mahāyāna, you know, [may say]:  &#8220;Mahāyāna is something more than,&#8221; you know, &#8220;more advanced teaching than Hīnayāna teaching because Hīnayāna teaching is just skillful means of—skillful, but <span style="text-decoration: underline;">means</span> of to guide his disciple to the goal,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Skillful means.  Skillful.  But it is just means of to give guidance to—to the goal.  It is like a finger to point out the moon.&#8221;  In this way, you know, hasty Mahāyāna Buddhist may understand.  And when they say Hīnayāna, you know, &#8220;Small Vehicle,&#8221; actually most, maybe, most people understood in that way in comparison to Hīnayāna—in comparison to Mahāyāna.  But, you know, more advanced understanding of it is skillful means itself is the First Principle.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So we have to accept Hīnayāna teaching with Mahāyāna spirit.  That is more advanced understanding.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  Are all means skillful [2-4 words unclear].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Yeah, if you understand more completely, you know, it can be—the teaching can be extended to that point when Zen is for <span style="text-decoration: underline;">everyone</span>, you know—the wise or the foolish, you know.  For <span style="text-decoration: underline;">everyone</span>.  If it is religion—if it is the perfect teaching it should be for everyone.  So skillful—we cannot understand the skillful means as a secondary, you know, means to—to the first principle.  That is, you know, shallow or hasty understanding of Mahāyāna teaching.  It may [have] started in that way, but we should have more deep understanding of Buddha&#8217;s teaching.  Okay?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Yeah—I have—it&#8217;s too late, so—</p>
<p>________________________________________________________</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape.  Verbatim transcript by Bill Redican (7/05/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  This lecture is tentatively numbered Lecture 4.  No tape for a lecture on October 24, 1969 (which would have been Lecture 3), is known to exist.  In this present lecture, Suzuki-rōshi three times refers to a lecture or discussion of the previous night and once to October 24<sup>th</sup>, but once to his <span style="text-decoration: underline;">previous</span> lecture (i.e., not necessarily the 24<sup>th</sup>).  So the tape of that lecture may or may not have existed at some time, but it has not as yet been identified.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  That is, other than the one translated by H. Kern (used in SR-69-10-23), which relies on a Sanskrit source text.  The translation Suzuki-rōshi uses in this and subsequent lectures is <em>Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma</em> (Leon Hurvitz, trans., New York:  Columbia University Press, 1976), which relies on the Kumārajīva translation as its source text.  Suzuki-rōshi revised Hurvitz&#8217; translation very slightly as he read and commented upon it.  (Hurvitz&#8217; translation was published five years after Suzuki-rōshi&#8217;s death, so Suzuki-rōshi must have relied on a pre-publication manuscript version of the text, which itself differs slightly from the 1976 published version.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  Translated from Sanskrit to Chinese by Kumārajīva in 406.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [4]  Possibly in <em>Shōbōgenzō </em>&#8220;Yuibutsu-yobutsu&#8221; (&#8220;Buddhas Alone, Together with Buddhas&#8221;).  A similar phrase is also found in <em>Shōbōgenzō </em>&#8220;Hokke-ten-hokke.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [5]  <em>Ibid.</em></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [6]  <em>Yuibutsu-yobutsu</em>: <em>yui</em>:  &#8220;only&#8221; or &#8220;solely&#8221;; + <em>yo</em>:  &#8220;and&#8221; or &#8220;together with&#8221;;<br />
+ <em>butsu</em>:  &#8220;buddha.&#8221;  Hence, &#8220;Buddhas alone, together with buddhas.&#8221;  (Suzuki-rōshi also commented on this term in Lecture SR-70-07-13.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [7]  &#8220;The way can be realized by a buddha alone.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [8]  <em>shrāvakayāka</em>:  &#8220;vehicle of the hearers.&#8221;  Also used to indicate the Hīnayāna way.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [9]  <em>shōmon</em>:  Japanese for Sanskrit <em>shrāvaka</em>, &#8220;hearer.&#8221;  Originally <em>shōmon</em> referred to an actual disciple of Shākyamuni Buddha.  In Mahāyāna usage, it refers to a Hīnayāna practitioner who reaches the stage of an <em>arhat</em> by observing a great number of precepts.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>  <em>muro-ka:</em>  an effect free from delusion or impurity; nirvāna; enlightenment.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>  <em>shohō-jissō</em>:  <em>sho</em>, &#8220;all&#8221; or &#8220;many&#8221;; + <em>hō</em>, physical and mental dharmas;<br />
+ <em>jitsu</em>, &#8220;real&#8221;; + <em>sō</em>, &#8220;form.&#8221;  Hence, &#8220;All dharmas are real form.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a>  <em>gāthā</em> (San.):  literally, &#8220;singly raising a chant.&#8221;  In a sūtra, <em>gāthā</em>s are stanzas of poetry that are independent of the preceding lines of prose; an independent verse.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a>  Probably in the Hurvitz manuscript.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a>  <em>bodhi</em> (San.):  truth; state of truth.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a>  Suzuki-rōshi is saying a Japanese term to himself (sounding as if he is trying to translate it).  He customarily had dictionaries and other reference materials close at hand when giving lectures on the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>, so he probably had a Japanese version of the text.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a>  <em>bhikshu</em>:  monk; beggar; fully ordained member of a <em>sangha</em>.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a>  <em>ksetra</em>s (San.):  literally, &#8220;field&#8221;; buddha-field.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a>  <em>futaiten</em> (Jap.):  not to regress from a realm one has attained.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a>  Jōza-bu (Jap.):  One of the schools of Hīnayāna Buddhism.</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1037</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/69-10-25-t.mp3" length="15094341" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 23rd, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1032</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1032#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 1969 02:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fish in the Water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Koan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lotus Sutra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Things-as-it-is]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transmission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zazen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi LOTUS SŪTRA, LECTURE NO. 2:  CHAPTER II [Third Lotus Sūtra Series] Thursday Evening, October 23, 1969 Zen Mountain Center Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-23 &#160; [The recording starts with Suzuki-rōshi reading from:  Saddharma-Pundarika or The Lotus of the True Law, translated by H. Kern, New York:  Dover, 1963 (an unaltered reprint of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_1034" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 437px"><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SR0060.jpg"><img class="size-large wp-image-1034 " title="SR0060" src="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SR0060-712x1024.jpg" alt="" width="427" height="614" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Suzuki-roshi at the wind caves in the ventana forest near Tassajara</p></div>
<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi</strong></p>
<p><strong><em>LOTUS SŪTRA</em></strong><strong>, LECTURE NO. 2:  CHAPTER II</strong></p>
<p><strong>[Third <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>Series]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Thursday Evening, October 23, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong>Zen Mountain Center</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/69-10-23-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-23</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[The recording starts with Suzuki-rōshi reading from:  </em><strong>Saddharma-Pundarika <em>or The Lotus of the True Law</em></strong><em>,</em><em> translated by H. Kern, New York:  Dover, 1963 (an unaltered reprint of the 1884 edition of "The Sacred Books of the East," Vol. XXI), Chapter II, "Skillfulness,"<br />
p. 30.  He is continuing from approximately the point where he left off in SR-69-10-20.]</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>… <em>out things difficult to understand.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The mystery of Tathāgata is difficult to understand, Shāriputra, because when they explain the law (or phenomena, things) that have their cause in themselves, they—they—they do so by means of skillfulness, by the display of knowledge, by argument, reasons, fundamental ideas, interpretations, and suggestions.  By a variety of skillfulness they are able to release creatures that are attached to one point or another.  The Tathāgata, Shāriputra, have acquired the highest perfection in skillfulness and the display of knowledge; they are endowed with wonderful properties, such as the display of free and unchecked knowledge; the power; the absence of hesitation; the independent conditions; the strength of the organs; the constituents of Bodhi; the contemplation; emancipations; meditations; the degree of concentration of mind.  The Tathāgata, Shāriputra, are able to expound various things and have something wonderful and marvelous.  Enough, Shāriputra, let it suffice to say that the Tathāgata have something extremely wonderful, Shāriputra.  None but Tathāgata, Shāriputra, can impart to a Tathāgata those laws which the Tathāgatas knows—Tathāgata knows.  And all ways [laws], Shāriputra, are taught by the Tathāgata, and by him alone; no one but he knows all laws, what they are, how they are, like what they are, of what characteristic and of what nature they are.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And on that occasion, to set forth the same subject more completely [copiously], the Lord uttered the following stanzas:</p>
<p>————————————————————————————————</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This chapter is, for us Sōtō students, a very important chapter.  If you understand this chapter so far as I read, you will understand what is our transmission, what is our practice, what kind of life we have as a Sōtō Zen priest or Sōtō Zen children—disciples [laughs].  It is so important.  But usually they don&#8217;t think this chapter is so important, and the most explanation of this chapter is very superficial.  So I want you to, you know, read it over and over again [during] study period.  I will take time and Dick [Baker] one line after one line very deeply and very widely.</p>
<p><span id="more-1032"></span></p>
<p>I—we must be very grateful for Dōgen-zenji to make—to find out the profound meaning of this sūtra, especially this chapter &#8220;Skillful Means.&#8221;  You know, usually skillful means or devices is something secondary, not the most important thing, but something secondary.  But it is not so.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You know, Buddha has been sitting in silent in spite of various miraculous things happening, but he was sitting just silent.  And as soon as he rose [from] his seat, and come out from meditation, he address to Shāriputra.  This is opposite, you know.  Mostly when someone ask him he gave answer, but this time when he started this sūtra, he addressed to Shāriputra, one of the most important disciples of Buddha.  And he says:  &#8220;This is what I—what I want to say now is something which is very important, something which I haven&#8217;t say, and which is very very difficult to understand for all of you.&#8221;  But usually, you know, Buddha said to Shāriputra, &#8220;You are good disciple.  You understand my teaching very well.&#8221;  [Laughs.]  But this time he said, &#8220;You may <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> understand what I will say.  This is a sūtra which I haven&#8217;t told you before.&#8221;  This is, you know, rather funny.  There is some reason—there is many reasons for that.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I said he is—this chapter is named &#8220;Chapter of Good Means,&#8221; or &#8220;Skillful Means,&#8221; and which looks like secondary.  Then, what is the first principle?  You may wonder what is the first principle.  Actually, the first principle is not something which you can talk about [laughs].  Even Buddha cannot talk about.  That is originally what the first principle means.  Whatever you say, even what Buddha said, once he said in words, that is not first principle any more.  But in this chapter, he is talking about which cannot, you know, talk about.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So there is no wonder why he said, &#8220;You, Shāriputra, and all the assembly may not understand what I will say right now.&#8221;  Or difficult to understand.  Here [it] says &#8220;difficult to understand,&#8221; but there is no other word, so it—the translation could be &#8220;difficult to understand,&#8221; but maybe &#8220;impossible to understand&#8221; [laughs] or &#8220;impossible to say&#8221; is right.  But it doesn&#8217;t, you know—if, you know, you say &#8220;impossible to understand,&#8221; you may say, &#8220;If it is impossible to understand, why you—why Buddha are going to talk about it?&#8221;  So [laughs] maybe better to say &#8220;difficult to understand.&#8221;  Whatever you say, you know, that is—that cannot be the first principle.  [Laughs.]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Here is already one big problem [laughs].  Here is already one point you should think about more.  Usually, many teachers will say this is the Mahāyāna—supreme Mahāyāna teaching, you know, this sūtra.  What the teaching which is told in this sūtra is Mahāyāna teaching which will destroy the misunderstanding of Hīnayāna Buddhist.  So for Hīnayāna Buddhist it is difficult to understand.  Actually, you know, literally if you read it literally it looks like so, but it is not so.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Hīnayāna Buddhist thought that we disciples cannot be like a Buddha, or in other word it is impossible to be a buddha.  Buddha is some super-human being, and we are human being.  So for us it is not possible to be a buddha.  And there is big, you know, borderline between Buddha and his disciple.  And the same time, they had big wall between the disciple who—who knows his teaching, who understand his teaching and the people who do not know anything about Buddhist teaching.  They had thick wall between Buddhist and non-Buddhist, or priest and layman.  Layman is already, you know, lay—there may be lay Buddhist, especially—Buddhist and non-Buddhist, like Christianity, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is Hīnayāna Buddhism, but in Mahāyāna teaching there is no such wall.  Even a animal can be a buddha, you know.  And everything—animate and inanimate beings are Buddha himself.  That is Mahāyāna teaching.  So that is why it is so difficult.  But actually, strictly speaking, it is not possible to say—to talk about it or not possible to understand it, what it means.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now, put this point in your mind always, and listen to my lecture.  In Page 32 [Kern edition]:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>None but Tathāgata, Shāriputra, can impart to a Tathāgata those laws which the Tathāgatas knows.  And all laws, Shāriputra, are taught by Tathāgata, and by him alone; no one but he knows all laws, what they are, how they are, like what they are, of what characteristic and of what nature they are.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is so-called-it, in Japanese, <em>shohō-jissō.</em>  &#8220;The things—the way things as they are.&#8221; <em> Shohō-jissō.</em>  Real—real way of things exist.  This is the essential—this is the oldest sūtra is supposed to be—express this teaching:  things as it is.  And in this translation, there is no—that word literally appears, but:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>None but Tathāgata, Shāriputra, can impart to a Tathāgata those—those laws which the Tathāgatas knows.  And laws, Shāriputra, are taught by Tathāgata, and by him alone; no one but he knows all laws, what they are, how they are, like what they are, of what characteristic and of what nature they are.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is actually the law of everything changes, and teaching of selflessness.  Things exist—things has no nature—no special nature.  Things exist—things exist in organic way or mechanical way, you know, like machine added one by one like this [probably gestures], you know.  Or things exist like vegetables or fruits—more organic way.  Organic way—that things exist in organic way means it has life, you know, in it.  Things and—things in—underlying life is same for every being.  The one, you know, life energy makes various form.  If so, we are not just a part of whole being.  We are always expressing one big life energy moment after moment.  This is actually how things exist, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So this truth is the truth—the essential truth for Buddhist.  And this teaching—this truth is the truth [laughs]—is the truth only Buddha knows—Shāri- [partial word], you know, according to hi- [partial word]—this sūtra.  Shāriputra doesn&#8217;t know—we are—we don&#8217;t know.  But you know that [laughs] actually we don&#8217;t know.  According to Buddha we don&#8217;t know.  Only buddha knows.  And only the—it is possible to transmit this wisdom to someone else when someone else become buddha.  So only buddha knows, but no one else knows.  This is another, you know, kōan [laughs] for you.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I shouldn&#8217;t—maybe I shouldn&#8217;t give you so many kōans [laughs] all at once.  We should solve one by one, maybe.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>For two–three lectures, we will be concentrated on those points, you know, and you should understand it with a close connection or relationship between [with] your practice.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Hmm.  I myself don&#8217;t know how to start [laughs], and how to stop, and how to confront with this big, big kōan.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Here is another translation—more familiar to Chinese and Buddhist—Chinese and Japanese Buddhist.  I think this is—I don&#8217;t know—this must be from Chinese <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The first point, you know, something which you can understand and which you cannot understand.  First of all, what does it mean?  You know, your eyes cannot see your eyes, you know.  So you cannot <span style="text-decoration: underline;">see</span> your eyes.  Eyes cannot see eyes, but I think eyes knows eyes much better than your nose know—knows—much better than <span style="text-decoration: underline;">you</span> know.  Eyes can explain eyes much better than your mouth explain.  Do you understand [laughs]?  So eyes knows much better than—eyes knows eyes much better than your brain think about, you know.  That is the truth.  Something which you can understand—there is something which you can understand, which you can talk about.  There is something which you cannot talk about.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We practice zazen, you know.  You—you say—most people say, &#8220;I have been practicing zazen for ten years&#8221; [laughs], but I haven’t attained anything [laughs].  Many people say so.  Or if you, you know—&#8221;If I attain enlightenment, what will happen to us?&#8221;  You say so, you know—many people say so.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Or many people ask me, you know, &#8220;If I attain enlightenment, or if you attain enlightenment, what will happen to you?&#8221;  Or &#8220;What has—what <span style="text-decoration: underline;">has</span> happened to you?&#8221;  Many people ask.  This kind of question is, you know, about this point.  Difficult to understand.  It is, you know, difficult to say, difficult to understand—difficult to foresee, or difficult to explain.  If you cannot explain it, then, you know, you don&#8217;t have it.  No:  You <span style="text-decoration: underline;">have</span> it, but you cannot explain it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In—in Japanese, proverb says, &#8220;If you have—if&#8221;—proverb just goes like this:  &#8220;Fish mind with water mind.&#8221;  &#8220;Fish mind with water mind.&#8221;  It means that if you have mind of fish, you know, you will have mind of water.  If you are kind to someone, you know, someone will be kind to you.  It is usually understood in that way.  You know, &#8220;Fish mind with water mind.&#8221;  Or &#8220;Water mind with fish mind.&#8221;  It goes together.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But that is not—that is just superficial understanding of it.  You may say, you know, &#8220;Cats knows—&#8221; or &#8220;Bird knows bird, and fish knows fish.&#8221;  So:  &#8220;No one but fish understand fish.  No one but bird understand bird,&#8221; in its complete sense.  So:  &#8220;No one but Buddha understand what he says,&#8221; you know.  &#8220;Only Buddha knows about this sūtra.  Even Shāriputra, the best disciple of Buddha, doesn&#8217;t know about this sūtra.&#8221;  You know, usually people understand in that way.  But—but it is not so.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Oh, there is some kōan like this, you know.  Let—no, let me—before I refer to this kōan, let me explain more.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In our practice, you know, in our practice we should [be] one with everything, you know.  If we become one with—one with something, or like breathing, or one with pain, or one with some sound, completely, you become one with everything.  So that you practice zazen means that everything else practice zazen.  Everything else in the cosmic—in cosmos practicing zazen.  With this idea, we practice zazen.  So to—the point is to one—to become one with something—to completely—to be completely one with something is our practice.  When you eat, you should, you know, [be] completely involved in eating.  If you work, you should work, you know.  You should be fully devoted to your every moment.  That is our practice.  We understand in that way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Then what will happen, you know—the kōan is, &#8220;What will happen if,&#8221; you know, &#8220;many things happen around you all at once?&#8221;  [Laughs.]  You know:  fire broke out, earthquake, you know, came, and flood came, and cats are fighting [laughs], dogs are running.  You know, what will you do?  If so many things happens all at once, can you become one with it?  That is a kōan.  How you solve this kōan?  Those, you know, problems are closely related each—with each other, and if you solve one you will solve everything.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I am not so kind as Dōgen-zenji was.  He explained, you know, very carefully about those points.  But my English is not so good, you know, to translate it in—in English.  But, you know, if you—if I suggest—if I say all those—if I show you all those—if I present you all those problems, which is actually one, I think you will—you can—you may be easier to work on it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The truth which Buddha is talking about in this sūtra is the truth which is possible to explain through—only through actual experience—actual experience.  Not some truth reduced from various fact.  Not—it is not some truth like theory of gravitation, you know—not something like that, but something which you—only through experience you can realize.  You know, we Sōtō priest—in <em>shikantaza</em> you just sit without any, you know, idea of enlightenment—enlightenment.  Moreover, you know, if you have some idea of enlightenment, and if you try to attain enlightenment as you have in your mind, you know, that is not true enlightenment.  Actually, in Rinzai way, you know, even though teacher—even though you practice zazen, to try to attain enlightenment which was explain by your teacher, you know, the enlightenment you will have is quite different [laughs] experience.  That is true, you know, and that is real enlightenment.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>To be you yourself on that moment completely is how you have enlightenment.  So whether you realize it in term of consciousness or not, that is real enlightenment.  So just to be satisfied with yourself on that moment is the real practice.  At that moment, you know yourself, you know, not in term of consciousness, or good or bad, or enlightenment, or delusion.  You know you yourself best.  And if, you know, you attain enlightenment, you are boss of whole universe.  And if I attain enlightenment of if I am here, even without enlightenment, you know, I am boss, actually.  You are—all of you are nobody; I am <span style="text-decoration: underline;">boss</span>.  For you, you are boss, you know; I am nobody.  This—this is very true.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>At that time, you know—actually you are there, I am here, but in its true sense there is no relationship between you and me because, you know, you include same area as I include [laughs], you know.  Same thing.  If it is completely same, you know, there is no relationship.  If there is two things there is relationship.  [Laughs.]  If it is just one, there is no relationship.  This is how you understand Buddha&#8217;s teaching, you know.  There is no relationship between Buddha and you.  Buddha—if you say &#8220;Buddha,&#8221; that is Buddha.  If you say &#8220;student—a student,&#8221; he is Buddha and include everything.  That is, you know … <em>[Sentence not finished.  Tape turned over.]</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is so true that, you know, no one don&#8217;t realize.  Birds knows birds.  Fish knows fish.  And in zazen—in instruction of zazen by Dōgen [he] says,<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>  &#8220;Fish is like fish; birds is like birds.  That is zazen.&#8221;  And when we say &#8220;birds,&#8221; there is no fish.  When we say &#8220;fish,&#8221; there is no bird.  In that way, you know, we should practice our way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s check up our everyday life, you know.  In this way, you know, we have to have our everyday life.  But actually, there is some way, you know.  You—you may say there is no special way for bird to go to their nest, you know.  You may say so.  It looks like so.  Or there is no way—special way for a fish to swim.  Or you may think there is no special way in Pacific Ocean to go to Japan [laughs].  That is, you know, most people thinks—most people think.  But there is actually very, you know—the narrow to—the way to Japan is pretty narrow, not so wide.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I always refer to my friend when I talk about this kind of thing.  You know, my friend who is barber, you know, always teach his, you know, his boy how to sharpen the razor like this, you know [probably gesturing].  &#8220;Do it naturally!&#8221; he says always [laughs].  &#8220;Do it more natural—like this.&#8221;  [Laughs, laughter.]  But slightest, you know, mistake will cut the razor.  The natural way is not so natural in its usual sense.  Before we become completely natural, we must try hard to be natural or to follow some way.  When you are able to follow some way, you are good enough to be natural.  Then you may say, &#8220;That is not naturalness.&#8221;  But actual naturalness exist in that way.  We are, you know, organic being.  We are natural—originally natural.  But if I am careless for one hour, I may catch cold if I don&#8217;t wear—if I don&#8217;t wear one more underwear I will catch cold.  Not so, you know, easy to be natural.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So &#8220;natural or not natural&#8221; just exist in your mind, and you are always fooled by words.  So it is much better not to think about those rules or those words &#8220;natural or not natural,&#8221; or &#8220;this way or that way,&#8221; &#8220;zazen practice or some other practice,&#8221; or &#8220;Japanese way or American way,&#8221; you know.  We are always bothered by those words, and creating many ideas.  We don&#8217;t know what to do.  And we lose our way.  How to forget, you know—how to go beyond our world of thinking—world of idea is how we practice zazen.  Just to be ourselves is the purpose of zazen.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I was not supposed to explain [laughs] those two kōans, but it looks like I explained it already [laughs] by mistake [laughter].  But not so easy [laughs].  Very easy, but actually it doesn&#8217;t go as you think [laughs].</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>_________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape.  Verbatim transcript by Bill Redican (7/3/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  Suzuki-rōshi does not read from a Kumārajīva translation (almost certainly the edition of Hurvitz) in this lecture, but he does in the following lectures.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  Suzuki-rōshi may be referring to <em>Shōbōgenzō </em>&#8220;Zazenshin&#8221; (&#8220;A Needle for Zazen&#8221;):</p>
<p><em>The water is clean, right down to the ground,</em></p>
<p><em>                   Fishes are swimming like fishes.</em></p>
<p><em>                   The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens,</em></p>
<p><em>                   And birds are flying like birds.</em></p>
<p>(From Nishijima and Cross, trans., <em>Shōbōgenzō </em>&#8220;Zazenshin,&#8221; Book 2, p. 106.)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Dōgen also discusses the metaphor in <em>Shōbōgenzō </em> &#8221;Yuibutsu-yobutsu.&#8221;</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1032</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/69-10-23-t.mp3" length="11216753" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 20th, 1969</title>
		<link>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1028</link>
		<comments>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1028#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 1969 02:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>korin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verbatim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lotus Sutra]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?p=1028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi LOTUS SŪTRA, LECTURE NO.  1 [Third Lotus Sūtra Series][1] Monday Evening, October 20, 1969 Zen Mountain Center Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-20 &#160; As many of you are the students who joined our training—this training period, and perhaps many of you didn&#8217;t join the last training period, so I think I must [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi </strong></p>
<p><strong><em>LOTUS SŪTRA</em></strong><strong>, LECTURE NO.  1 </strong></p>
<p><strong>[Third <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>Series]<a title="" href="#_ftn1"><strong>[1]</strong></a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Monday Evening, October 20, 1969</strong></p>
<p><strong>Zen Mountain Center </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/69-10-20-t.mp3">Listen to this talk: Suzuki-roshi 69-10-20</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>As many of you are the students who joined our training—this training period, and perhaps many of you didn&#8217;t join the last training period, so I think I must tell you about the spirit of <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> because it is rather difficult for someone who want to join—who want to read it as you read Bible or Confucianism.  It is not—<em>Lotus Sūtra </em>is—can you hear me?—okay?—is not some sūtra which—like chronicle of great sage—chronicle of saying or actions of great sage like Christ or Confucian.  It is like—something like <em>Divine Comedy</em>.  I don&#8217;t know how you call it:  <em>Divine Comedy</em> of Dante, you know.  Or it is something like a great music, you know.  It is actually something to feel when you read it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So in Japan, whether or not they understand it, they repeat, you know, <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> over and over again, and—until they get some—until they get the feeling of the sūtra.  It is, you know—if you think it is a good—great music, maybe, you will appreciate this sūtra.  So if you read it chapter by chapter, you know, it doesn&#8217;t mean anything.  It is like a—to see the big building, you know, part by part.  Even—sometime you will see just strange, you know, foundation of the big building.  It is not so—although it is something big, but it is not so interesting.  It may be a big big stone or a concrete, but if you see the building from distance, it may be a beautiful building.  So until you read it over and over again and appreciate whole—whole structure of the building, it is not so interesting sūtra.  It looks like a kind of miss which is written in great scale.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is the difference between Hīnayāna—I shouldn&#8217;t say &#8220;Hīnayāna&#8221;—maybe <span style="text-decoration: underline;">original</span> Buddhism and more developed Buddhism from original so-called-it Hīnayāna Buddhism.  For an instance, you know:  You are very much interested in Zen.  But Zen is maybe a big mysticism in one way.  When we put emphasis on enlightenment, and when we talk about enlightenment [laughs], you know, it is something beyond actually what we are saying.  You will feel the spirit of it by kōan or by story or by <em>Shōbōgenzō</em>.  You will feel some burning—some—some—something very hot inside.  It is like a blue flame, you know—it is very hot.  And very direct.  That is the characteristic of Zen.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So it is—we say it is something beyond world—after we talked about Buddhism—after Mahāyāna Buddhist expressed their spirit by—in big big scale, Zen, you know, started to express Buddhist spirit more direct way and completely different way.  But it is not usual—it is very difficult to understand anyway what does it mean, actually.  What kind of spirit is hidden in it is difficult.  That is why kōan is difficult—kōan study is difficult.</p>
<p><span id="more-1028"></span></p>
<p>Same thing is true with Mahāyāna scriptures.  Unless you feel the hidden spirit in it, it is rather difficult to appreciate it.  And it may take pretty long time to understand it, because it is pretty voluminous scripture.  And for Zen student it takes pretty long time.  We say, &#8220;sudden enlightenment&#8221; [laughs], but actually after practicing very hard with intense—with intensity and with firm conviction, you will understand the hidden spirit.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Zen is very practical.  We say it is—it is so.  But how practical is quite different, you know.  It is not like to keep a bank account, you know.  To keep, you know, bank account is very practical work.  But [laughs] our—when we say Zen is very practical, it is closely related to our everyday life, we say.  But Zen is not something like the way of living or moral code.  If you, you know, followed some Zen—if you think—if you follow Zen teaching, you will—you will have some advantage.  If you understand in that way, that will be the great misunderstanding.  The purpose—the real purpose of zazen or reading of scripture is to—to understand high idea—lofty idea of Buddhist and encouraging by the Buddhist spirit.  You can enjoy your life in—that is what we mean when we say Zen stress our everyday life.  If you do not—if you haven&#8217;t attain—if you haven’t attain this kind of spirit by yourself, you should practice our way with some teacher who has that kind of spirit.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The same thing is true in studying <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.  My mother,<a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>  you know, always recited this sūtra.  When I was young—when [s]he was taking care of me, [s]he was—sometime [s]he was reciting <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>, so I know very well, you know, how to recite it.  And [laughs] when I become 12 or 13, I, you know, I thought this is very—I couldn&#8217;t understand, you know.  When I could understand what she was saying, &#8220;If you like—&#8221; when she says, &#8220;If you—even though you tossed off the cliff of some high mountain, you will—you will—you will be the sa- [partial word]—you will be safe.&#8221;  Or, &#8220;Even though you jump into a fire, a flame, you will not be burned.&#8221;  Or, &#8220;If you drift about—if you drift on the black storm—black stormy sea, you will not be—you will be saved.&#8221;  Something like that.  If someone want to kill you by a sword, sword will broken in piece.&#8221;  Something like that, you know.  I [laughs]—I was—when I could understand what she was saying, I doubt, you know.  I though he—she is v- [partial word]—my mother is very superficial—superstitious person.  I though I would—I wouldn&#8217;t hear—I didn&#8217;t like to hear mother recite—mother&#8217;s reciting.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But I—I cannot forget [laughs] her attitude—her way of reciting sūtra.  And it was a kind of encouragement for me always, when I think of my mother reciting <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In monastery also we recite this sūtra at some certain period, over and over again.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When I went to East Coast this time, I—I—I was almost—all the time I was in—in Vermont.  And I went to Vermont first and then Rochester.  And I stayed [in] New York just two days and came back.  I saw beautiful mountains and beautiful old stone—deserted stone wall in Vermont.  And I felt, you know, as if I were some old old country.  And I—my mind—I was dreaming about many things.  Sometime I felt as if we have big big monastery in [laughs] deep mountain.  My trip was a kind of dreamy trip [laughs].  And even—I met many people, but I was—I think I was not so practical, you know [laughs].  Maybe I am talking about some dream—dream of Zen Center or something like that.  But I didn&#8217;t feel I am talking about my dream, you know.  It was—to me it was very practical and very realistic things to have some beautiful zendō in Tassajara or to have beautiful building in the center of San Francisco.  It was not dream any more after I saw many mountains.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And, you know, they—I saw many—I saw owner of the property, and most of them—most of them who I met want us to build some zendō in Vermont or in East Coast.  So I thought if—if we fix our mind, they may give us some property [laughs], but, you know, maybe that is my dream, but it was very actual—very realistic to me at that time.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>If someone say it is, you know, &#8220;He is daydreamer,&#8221; maybe I am daydreamer.  But if you have some confidence in your—in realizing your ideal, that is not—I don&#8217;t think that is a dream.  Even though you have a small, you know, monastery, it will be a big big monastery if you have a Buddhist spirit.  It is not actually the matter of big or small.  That&#8217;s—if you—if we express our spirit in big scale, it may be a <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.  If we express our spirit in, you know, one word or very simple word, it may be toilet paper [laughs] or three pounds of hemp or piece of rice or grain of rice.  If you say what is our spirit, if you say, when you [are] asked what is our spirit, &#8220;three pounds of hemp,&#8221; that is Zen.  If you say—if you say—recite <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>, that is Mahāyāna teaching.  So it is necessary for you to have some spirit to appreciate the spirit of the—hidden spirit of the Mahāyāna teaching when you study <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This scripture was written—no one knows exactly when, but we don&#8217;t think that is—the scripture was written some particular person.  Maybe while they are reciting something which was written by someone, I think this scripture more—became more and more popular, and many collection—not &#8220;collection&#8221;—but expression of it more and more—became more and more refined.  And maybe in 100 B. C. or<br />
200 B. C.—from 200 to 100, this scripture supposed to be—supposed to become this kind of—this style.  And if you want to—to know the—how Buddha&#8217;s teaching become developed into Mahāyāna teaching, I want you to read <em>Wind Bell</em>.<a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>   I think you will understand how—what kind of background this sūtra has—historical background and how Buddhism developed into Mahāyāna Buddhism.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Buddhist—Buddhist scholars say Hīnayāna or Theravāda teaching put emphasis on form of—form of expression, or, you know, because Mahāyāna—Hī- [partial word]—Theravāda teaching is more rigid and literal—some—more like chronicle of saying or activities of sage.  So you can understand it literally.  So even though you read just one sentence, you will be encouraged and you will understand it.  But Mahāyāna scriptures put emphasis on the nature of the teaching or spirit of teaching, scholars—many scholars say.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So Mahāyāna Buddhist do not understand things literally.  For an instance, you know, when—we have precepts like &#8220;Don&#8217;t kill.&#8221;  So for Theravāda or Hīnayāna Buddhist, to kill some bugs is, you know, violence of the scripture—the precepts, because they stick to the moral code.  But for Mahāyāna Buddhist, you know, if he stick to the word—if he understand precepts literally and stick to it, it is the violence of the precepts of—Fifth Precepts:  &#8220;Don&#8217;t be intoxicated by <em>sake</em>.&#8221;  <em>Sake</em> also is not just wine.  Even though the teaching—if you stick to it, and if you are intoxicated by it, that is wine also.  [Laughs.]  So way of observing precepts [is] also very different.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Same thing is true in understanding of those scriptures.  The five, for an instance—five—fifth—Fourth Precepts is not to tell a lie, you know.  But in <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>,<a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>  Buddha, when he was bodhisattva he tell a lie to his family.  And he said &#8220;I am—I shall—I am going to die.&#8221;  Oh, no no—he said, &#8220;I want to go—I want to make a trip.  Perhaps I may not come back.&#8221;  So the children—some of the children who—who is not poisoned by—who is not spoiled completely by his father thought, &#8220;Oh, now there is—my father is not here, and he will not come again.  So we must study hard.&#8221;  And they—some of them started [to] study hard.  But some of them who are not—who [were] completely spoiled by his father did not start—did not study hard.  But when he—when they learn the father is no more, then he—then they—they were awakened.  And that is—&#8221;Who&#8221;—and scripture says, &#8220;<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Who</span> criticize this father who tell a lie to—to his children?&#8221;  It is because he told a lie to make them awake and to study hard.  That was why he told a lie.  This kind of, you know, story is everywhere.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So the true way must have both side, you know.  We have underst- [partial word]—we must understand sometime scripture literally and follow the scripture literally like Theravāda Buddhist sometime.  But sometime we should not follow, or we should not quote by the teaching literally—which is literally.  So we say, especially—Dōgen-zenji&#8217;s way is to understand Buddhism with Mahāyāna spirit by Hīnayāna practice.  That is, you know, actually Dōgen-zenji&#8217;s way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So we must—and why this sūtra is important is this include—this scripture express both way.  According to this scripture, you know, even one leaf of grass is Buddha, you know.  Everything is Buddha.  Whatever you do, that is the expression of Buddha&#8217;s way.  So this scripture put emphasis on each being or our everyday activity.  Whatever you do, we should make our best in what we do, day by day.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And, on the other hand, things we do or things we see in everyday life should be understood in great spirit.  So this scripture put emphasis on big spirit in smallest things:  something near-at-hand.  This scripture include both side.  That is why this scripture is called &#8220;King of All Scriptures.&#8221;  I think that is why Dōgen-zenji liked this scripture, and he referred to this scripture so many times in <em>Shōbōgenzō</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So I want you, you know, whether you understand it or not, it may be good practice to repeat—to repeat it.  Then you will have, you know, naturally you will have some spirit which is hidden in this scripture.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do you have some question?  I think we have some more time.  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student A:</strong>  Will all of your lectures during this practice period be on the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Ahh.  I don&#8217;t know.  I—I want to—to explain maybe some important chapters.  So it—I don&#8217;t think it will take so long time.  If I have time—more time, I will start something else.  Do you have some question?  <em>Hai</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  While we&#8217;re studying the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>, how do we apply—apply mental effort?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Oh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  You said that we should just maybe repeat it over and over again.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  That&#8217;s all, you know.  It is rather difficult to apply this sūtra, you know, directly to everyday life.  To have big spirit, we read this sūtra.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  How should we try to penetrate it while we&#8217;re reading it?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Mm-hmm.  How?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student B:</strong>  Yeah.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Just read it.  You know, if you [laughs]—it may be—may be tedious sometime.  It will make you sleepy sometime [laughs] because—I think so.  But if you read it over and over again, then you will have—you will have this kind of spirit—Mahāyāna spirit.  It doesn&#8217;t work directly.  I think you will—you will study something, you know, so that you can apply the teaching directly to your everyday life.  It doesn&#8217;t work in that way.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Maybe we can, you know, recite a part of it in morning chant or evening chant, you know, instead of <em>Hannya-shingyō</em><a title="" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>  sometime.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do you have some—some more questions?  <em>[Sentence finished.  Tape turned over.]</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>I will start from the chapter of &#8220;Good Means&#8221;—Chapter II.  So may be better to—if you have the book, better to read it.  It is rather difficult for me to explain it, you know.  But I will try, and if you read it before—in—in study—study time, it will help, you know.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Some more questions?  No?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  I have a question.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  <em>Hai.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  It sounded like your mother had—had faith in the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Uh-huh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student C:</strong>  Could you speak about faith and Zen?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Faith and Zen.  Oh.  You know, it—not &#8220;faith.&#8221;  I think a kind of prayer, maybe, for her.  When he—she felt very—maybe very much encouraged, you know, having something—some problem in her mind.  Because he—she had some—some difficulty—not &#8220;some difficulty&#8221;—actually she had big difficulty as a wife of a priest, you know, at that time.  So, you know, I think she couldn&#8217;t help, you know, reciting sūtra like this.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Most, you know—all the Buddhist priest had very, very difficult time at that time, you know.  That is the—that was the second part of Meiji Period.<a title="" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>   The policy of Meiji government, you know, penetrated all over Japan.  And so Buddhist, you know, Buddhist temple almost, you know—Buddhism were almost dying at that time.  And priest had very difficult time.  And people are very much interested in Western civilization.  And Meiji government—policy of Meiji government is to encourage Shintoism, and to make Japan stronger by army and believing in Shintoism, and study—to have hard study of Western culture, you know, to catch up [with] advanced countries, and to make country stronger.  That was the policy of Meiji government.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So Buddhist, you know, had very difficult time at that time.  When, you know [laughs], when they—my parents—when it rains, my parents, you know, used umbrella <span style="text-decoration: underline;">inside</span> [laughs] and boiled tea.  The roof was leaking badly [laughs, laughter].  And the temple was bec- [partial word]—financially they had very difficult time.  So little by little they had to sell the property, you know, little by little.  But when—my father&#8217;s time there was no property at all at that time, because my father&#8217;s—the priest who was in that temple before my father, you know, sell almost all the property.  They have no money.  The people didn&#8217;t support temple.  So there is no way to mend roof or building.  <em>Tatami</em><a title="" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>  is almost, you know, broken.  I remember exactly.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So I—I have—when I go to school, I was small hippy [laughs, laughter].  But my head is always shaved by him [laughs].  When we have ceremony, you know, at school, they wear <em>hakama</em>,<a title="" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>  you know, usually.  But I had no <em>hakama </em>[laughs].  I didn&#8217;t like to attend, you know, some festival or ceremony at all, because I couldn&#8217;t dress up as my friend did.  So that—I—I didn&#8217;t mind so much as my mother did, you know.  I can imagine how she felt.  She had always that kind of feeling or problem.  So she was just reciting sūtra [laughs].  Ahh.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>But I criticize him when—criticize her when I became—when I could understand what she was reciting.  I think that is—maybe for her that is a kind of prayer, you know.  He was—she was reciting the Chapter 25 always,<a title="" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>  where is says—it repeats come miraculous power of saving people—power of Avalokiteshvara in saving people.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>My teacher, you know, Kishizawa-rōshi<a title="" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>  had big, you know, hard skin here.<a title="" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>   He was bowing always, maybe—I don&#8217;t know how many times he bow to Buddha.  I think that was a kind of prayer.  He wanted to be a good—good Zen master, you know, Zen priest.  But he had <span style="text-decoration: underline;">too strong ego</span> [laughs].  He was too stubborn.  And he called himself &#8220;one-legged priest,&#8221; you know, or—what do you call [it] if you—if you cannot walk, you know, without stick?  When he write some calligraphy, his sign is &#8220;one-legged priest.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  &#8220;Peg-legged.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  Hmm?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student D:</strong>  If you have a wooden leg, it called &#8220;peg-legged.&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Student E:</strong>  &#8220;Lame&#8221;?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Suzuki-rōshi:</strong>  [Laughs.]  &#8220;Lame,&#8221; maybe.  &#8220;Cripple—cripple priest.&#8221;  He—you know, so to conquer his ego he bowed to Buddha until he has [laughs] the skin [callous] here.  Because of that he was scolded by his teacher<a title="" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>  always.  I think that is a kind of prayer.  [Laughs.]  Even though you know this is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">right</span>, but your mind doesn&#8217;t [laughs] follow sometime.  There is no other way to make prayer.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I think if you practice hard—if you want to practice hard, I think prayer will follow.  If you say, &#8220;That&#8217;s all right.  Everyone has ego—not only me.  Everyone has ego, so it is all right for me to have some ego.&#8221;  If you say or if you understand in that way, you will not conquer your ego.  You say &#8220;ego<span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>ness&#8221; quite easily, but it is not so easy.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So I think not to gain something, not to recover from illness—if you become—if you appreciate or if you have—if you understand the Buddhist spirit, I think you—you cannot help praying for your teachers or for your—for the patriarchs—successive patriarchs who have been making same effort.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>[Tape recording was stopped and then restarted.  Then Suzuki-rōshi started reading from:  </em><strong>Saddharma-Pundarika or The Lotus of the True Law</strong><em>,</em><em> translated by H. Kern, New York:  Dover, 1963 (an unaltered reprint of the 1884 edition of "The Sacred Books of the East,"<br />
Vol. XXI), p. 30.] </em><a title="" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a><em></em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Chapter II:  &#8220;Skillfulness&#8221;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Lord then arose with recollection and consciousness from his meditation, and forthwith addressed the venerable Shāriputra:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>&#8220;The buddha-knowledge, Shāriputra, is profound, difficult to understand, difficult to comprehend.  It is difficult for all disciple and </em>pratyekabuddhas<em> to fathom the knowledge arrive at by </em>tathāgata<em>s</em>, <em>and that, Shāriputra, because the </em>tathāgata<em> have worshipped many hundred thousand millions</em> [myriads]<em> of </em>koti<em>s of buddhas; because they have fulfilled their course for supreme, complete enlightenment, during many hundred thousand million—myriads of </em>koti<em>s of æons; because they have wandered far, displaying energy and possessed of won- </em>[tape ends].  <em>  </em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>_________________________________________________________________</p>
<h6>Source:  City Center original tape.  Verbatim transcript by Bill Redican (7/3/01).</h6>
<div><br clear="all" /></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div>
<p> [1]  The first series of seven lectures was given starting in February 1968; it was edited for the Spring 1969 edition of <em>Wind Bell</em>.  The second series of at least 13 lectures was given starting in October 1968.  This third series of six or seven lectures was given from October 20 to November 7, 1969.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [2]  Yone Shima (d. April 1938).  She married Suzuki-rōshi&#8217;s father, Butsumon Sogaku Suzuki, circa 1901.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [3]  Suzuki-rōshi may be referring to the Spring 1968 issue of <em>Wind Bell</em>, which printed a summary of six lectures on the <em>Lotus Sūtra</em> delivered by Suzuki-rōshi starting in February of 1968 at Tassajara (SR-68-02-00-A/G).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [4]  Suzuki-rōshi may be referring to the parable in Chapter 15 in the Kern translation of the Sanskrit, chapter 16 in the translations from the Chinese (Hurvitz, Reeves, Watson, etc.):  &#8220;Duration of Life of the Tathāgatha.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [5]  <em>Heart Sūtra</em>.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [6]  Meiji Period:  1868–1912.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [7]  Rigid floor mats of woven straw.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [8]  Traditional pleated trousers.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> [9]  In the Kern edition of the <em>Lotus Sūtra </em>it is Chapter 24, in the standard Chinese version, Chapter 25.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>  Kishizawa Minpo Ian-zenji (1865-1955):  a leading interpreter of Dōgen&#8217;s <em>Shōbōgenzō</em>.  He received dharma transmission from Nishiari Bokusan. Suzuki-rōshi attended him at Eihei-ji monastery.  After Kishizawa-zenji left Eihei-ji, he founded and moved to Kyokuden-in, Shizuoka, a temple close to Suzuki-rōshi&#8217;s own Rinso-in.  Suzuki-rōshi continued to study with Kishizawa-zenji from 1932 until Kishizawa&#8217;s death in 1955.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>  Kishizawa-rōshi had a callus on his forehead from bowing so often.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a>  Possibly Nishiari Bokusan or Oka Sōtan.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a>  Formatting and spelling conventions in this transcript are very slightly altered from the Kern edition for the sake of consistency, clarity, and/or contemporary usage (e.g., Kern uses &#8220;<em>S</em>âriputra&#8221;; this transcript uses &#8220;Shāriputra&#8221;).  However, this transcript preserves any differences between the Kern text and Suzuki-rōshi&#8217;s reading of it (e.g., if Suzuki-rōshi used a singular noun and Kern a plural, the singular form was entered here).</p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1028</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/69-10-20-t.mp3" length="12356177" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

