The Awakening of Faith – Talk 3: One Mind and Its Two Aspects
April 6, 1984 Dharma Talk by Dainin Katagiri Roshi
List | Previous | Next | Series: Awakening of Faith
Summary
Katagiri Roshi begins discussing Part Three, the main part of the work. Chapter One, “Revelation of True Meaning,” begins with the section “One Mind and Its Two Aspects.”
Transcript
This transcript is in draft stage.
0:00
I want to get into Part Three, omitting Part One and Part Two. Because… well, sometimes I will explain Part One and Part Two, [but] particularly Part Three is very important: “Interpretation.” This is the main subject. More than half of this book is spent explaining the contents of this discourse. So I want to start to study from Part Three, “Interpretation.” This is a very logical explanation of Buddhism.
Part Three
InterpretationThe part on outline has been given; next the part on interpretation will be given. It consists of three chapters: (1) Revelation of the True Meaning; (2) Correction of Evil Attachments; (3) Analysis of the Types of Aspiration for Enlightenment.
(From The Awakening of Faith, translated by Yoshito S. Hakeda, 1967.)
I gave you the diagram. Do you have this? I think you should bring this diagram too, alright?
So the interpretation is divided into three chapters. One is “Revelation of the True Meaning,” second, “Correction of Evil Attachments,” third, “Analysis of the Types of Aspiration for Enlightenment.”
“The part on outline has been given”: this is page 28, Part Two, “Outline.” So […] “next the part on interpretation…” This is “Interpretation.”
Chapter One
Revelation of True Meaning
“Revelation of True Meaning” means, [logically] speaking, in this chapter, this author tried to explain the meaning of Mahayana teaching. I told you, Mahayana means universal dynamic working; this is Mahayana. [It’s] not Mahayana opposed to Hinayana. So the title of this book is Awakening of Faith, but strictly speaking, this is the awakening of Mahayana faith.
Mahayana faith, not faith in Mahayana. The original text says Mahayana faith in the Outline. […] Here it says “The Awakening of Faith,” but sometimes in this translation it says “The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana.” [Katagiri Roshi makes a sound that sounds a lot like “bleh,” but could be “but.”] [But] it’s not in Mahayana, [it’s] Mahayana faith, okay? Because faith must be dynamic working, reaching to the limits of phenomena, the limits of human knowledge. At that time, you can really touch the core of existence. So, […] at that time it is called dynamic working, truth.
So […] “Revelation of True Meaning” is [that] they try to explain the real meaning of Mahayana teaching. Or concretely speaking, particularly […] in terms of our life, “revelation of the true meaning means” […] what is the overall picture of your life. Simply speaking, you say reality: real reality. Real reality, the overall picture of reality; what is the overall picture of reality you are present in from moment to moment. That is “Revelation of True Meaning.” So this is the title of Chapter One.
And then, this Chapter One is also divided into two sections. [The first] is called […] “One Mind and Its Two Aspects.”
I. One Mind and Its Two Aspects
The revelation of the true meaning […] by […] that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute […], and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena […]. Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive.
The last sentence is translated in a different way according to D. T. Suzuki. He says, “Both are so closely interrelated that one cannot be separated from the other.”
Well, anyway:
8:57
The revelation of the true meaning by that the principle of One Mind has two aspects.
In this case “the principle” means dharma. Dharma is translated as “the principle” here, in this translation. So, “dharma of one-mind.”
Look at page 28, “Part Two (Outline),” the third paragraph:
The principle is “the Mind of the sentient being.” This Mind includes in itself all states of being of the phenomenal world and the transcendental world. On the basis of this Mind, the meanings of Mahayana may be unfolded.
In this case also “the principle” refers to dharma. “The dharma is the mind of the sentient being. This mind includes in [itself] all states of being of the phenomenal world and the transcendental world. On the basis of this mind, the meanings of Mahayana may be unfolded.” This statement is described in detail in this paragraph I read, “One Mind and Two Aspects.” So that’s why here it says, the revelation of the true meaning by that principle [of] the dharma of the one-mind has two aspects.
So from this point, one-mind means dharma. One-mind is dharma, dharma is one-mind. One-mind means universal entity. You can say absolute, you can say truth.
In the Avatamsaka school, Avatamsaka Sutra, we say Mind Only. Mind Only, this is also one-mind; [it is the] same meaning [as] one-mind. The teaching of the Mind Only comes from this, The Awakening of Faith.
So this book has lots of teachings. Zen teachings are also here. This book tried to collect the essence of the Buddhist teaching. So from this book, the Shin school comes out, Zen comes out from this teaching, Avatamsaka Sutra, and also the Buddhist psychology. So this book is kind of a… what would you say… “digest” of Buddhist teaching. That’s why this book is very popular.
Usually one-mind is understood as the absolute in the philosophical sense. But here it says, one-mind, dharma, is the mind of the all sentient beings. [This is] not [the] ontological, philosophical sense. Dharma is not the philosophical sense, but that is the mind of all sentient beings. So that means all of us. So dharma or one-mind is the mind of all sentient beings: the mind of the tape recorder, the mind of all of us.
So [it comes] very close. If you understand one-mind as philosophical or psychological, it’s kind of an idea. But if you understand one-mind as the mind of all sentient beings, it comes very close.
That’s why in Part Two (Outline), first of all it says [that] dharma is the mind of sentient beings. This is very important.
And also, this one-mind unfolds Mahayana teaching. So all Mahayana teaching comes from one-mind. That is […], idealistically, you say truth, or the buddha-nature, or dharma-nature, or tathagatagarbha – whatever you say – but the Mahayana teaching comes from the mind of all sentient beings. That teaching comes from all of you, from your life.
That’s why here it says, the dharma is the mind of all sentient beings.
That’s why I [always say] Buddha’s teaching is human life. It’s not philosophy! It’s philosophy because life is very complicated. That’s why we have to understand it as best as we can. […] In order to understand the human life philosophically, psychologically… well, it becomes very complicated. But it’s really connected with human life. If you don’t understand the philosophical aspect of Buddhist teaching in relation with human life, it’s nothing but, what would you say, metaphysical, philosophical. It’s just ideas.
When I went to university, […] all the teachers gave lectures on the Madhyamakas, and the Avatamsaka Sutras, and emptiness… Whatever they taught, all of their teaching was really cold. Their teaching had nothing to do with our lives.
So […] when the truth is seen in terms of […] the phenomenal world of human suffering, in other words the samsaric world, truth is called “the mind of all sentient beings.” But, when the truth is seen from the absolute – no delusions, no confusions, et cetera – it is called one-mind, we say one-mind. So, there are many words there, but they all have [almost] the same meaning. But when the truth is seen from a different angle, at that time, truth has different words. One-mind, the mind of all sentient beings. Or tathagatagarbha means you have buddha-nature, you are already buddha-nature, buddha. This is tathagatagarbha. You are already stored; garbha means “storage.” “Dharma container,” your body is dharma container, garbha. Tathagata means buddha.
20:18
So, “… the principle” – the dharma – “of One Mind has two aspects.”
One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute …
So-called truth…
… and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena.
So, phenomena and truth: One-mind has two aspects. In other words, one piece of paper with two aspects: one is the absolute or truth, the other is phenomena.
And also,
Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence.
Each of these two aspects, the absolute and phenomena, embraces all sentient beings.
So that means [the] real reality we live, from day to day, is called one-mind in terms of the absolute. So real reality is completely absolute, completely no comment. Constantly you are there, wherever you may go. You make a mistake, you don’t make a mistake, or crying, laughing, or whatever you say, you are doing [it] right in the middle of real reality, based on one-mind. This is, philosophically we say, one-mind. And then, we act. When we act, we think, we cry, we suffer, many things. This is the phenomenal world. So the phenomenal world is always going in the realm of the absolute. Nowhere to escape [to].
So this is the very important outlook on human life, the human world. Whatever you think – tape recorder, microphone, trees, birds, winters, whatever you think – anyway, all sentient beings exist just like this. So, you should have outlook on human life, human world according to this teaching.
That’s why here it says, “Each of these two aspects embraces all state of existence.”
Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive.
Inclusive; you cannot separate them. They are two, but they are not two, they are one. But it’s not one: if you say “one,” it seems to be combined, two things. It’s not combination of two things. That is a little difficult understanding. […] Philosophically, intellectually you can understand it, but […] it is very difficult for us to find a way how to live in that real reality, on the basis of interrelated with truth and phenomena. It’s pretty difficult. Not only Buddhism, but […] Western philosophy, or many philosophers anyway, explain the truth and phenomena, but it’s very difficult to find philosophers to teach us how to live, how to dwell in there constantly, how to act, how to live in peace and harmony. It’s pretty hard.
But Buddhism constantly teaches us that point. That’s why from this point, the goal of Buddhism is not understanding the meaning of liberation or the experience of liberation; [that’s] not the final goal. The final goal is the understanding of liberation, experience of liberation, but, you have to have deep compassion to help all sentient beings on the basis of liberation. This is called liberation. You have to help!
So that is because, if you become [liberated], very naturally you can help. This is real liberation. But if you don’t help all sentient beings: even though you understand, even though you experience liberation, it doesn’t make sense.
So, the final goal of Buddhism is understanding, experiencing liberation, but you have to put it into practice, in order to help all sentient beings. That is the final goal. So finally, right in the middle of the practice of helping all sentient beings, completely no idea, […] no perception of liberation. You should forget it. You have to be free from liberation, and then you can help.
That’s why always there is a negative expression there: “no help,” “no liberation.” Okay? That is called nirvana, we say “nirvana.”
Nirvana is final liberation, completely final liberation. So, […] according to the universe, nirvana is kind of a black hole, you know? [He chuckles.] Enlightenment, delusions, sufferings, and pleasures: all stuff are completely sucked in and disappear. Nevertheless, you are really [working] there.
But if you experience nirvana, if you think [of] something like that, people are scared. If I say “nirvana is a black hole,” you are scared, [he chuckles,] you are afraid of that. But in terms of spiritual life, I don’t think you disappear. You appear, conspicuously, more than before – very clearly. Your consciousness works very clearly, and you can act very clearly, stably. But no [perceptions], no ideas. Your everyday life really works.
So that’s why [it says], “because these two aspects are mutually inclusive.”
I think in order to understand the human world, human beings, you should keep this point in mind: phenomena and truth are interactive, interpenetrated, interdependent, constantly. So that is totally, as a whole, we say, dynamic working.
[It is] just like kind of a statue of the Buddha made of gold. And if you see this statue, maybe you say, “[It’s] gold.” Yes, it’s gold. But on the other hand, someone says, “It’s a Buddha statue!” Because, it’s a Buddha statue. Whatever you say, it hits the mark, because it’s a Buddha statue, but on the other hand, it is gold. So [if] you say “gold,” it’s right, because the Buddha statue is made of gold. So whatever part of the Buddha statue is taken by you, it’s gold. But without gold, you cannot make the Buddha statue.
The Buddha statue is the phenomenal world. The gold is truth, absolute, one-mind. The mind of all sentient beings. Your basic nature is exactly gold.
And then that gold and Buddha statue are exactly one. You cannot separate it. So without it, without the gold, without the absolute or the mind of all sentient beings, without buddha-nature, without truth – you cannot exist. Just like Roger, just like Katagiri. […] Just like [the] table.
This is a very important point. If you try to understand the people and things, material beings, whatever it is, in [the] appropriate way, you should keep this point in mind. Without the truth, you cannot exist. You cannot take a certain form, so-called Roger, so-called Katagiri, so-called table. You cannot [think it]; you cannot exist. It’s impossible. That’s why this book always mentions this point.
32:55
[…] And also… here it says, “[these] two aspects are mutually inclusive.” Well, temporarily I can say so, like this. [The] limits of suffering – limits of phenomena, the limits of knowledge, limits of pleasure, whatever you say – [the] limits of suffering is the beginning of vastness, the truth, exactly. The limits of suffering is the beginning of vastness or truth or one-mind, universe. So “limits of the suffering” means if you experience suffering through and through… [sometimes] you cannot cry; sometimes you can burst out laughing. [He chuckles.] Okay? So the limits of suffering is not suffering, completely not suffering. It’s something else. So maybe laughing. And the limits of laughter becomes suffering, crying. Like this. Because the limits of joy is the beginning of vastness; because the end of the joy is completely extending everywhere, so that is vastness. That is called beginning of the vastness, so-called truth.
Everyone experiences this. For instance, in the 1960s and 70s in San Francisco, lots of things happened. I knew a couple of people who were really mental disordered. In a sense, one man suffered a lot. I don’t know if he suffered in appropriate way or not, anyway, he suffered. And then several times he was in the hospital, and coming out, or getting in again, always back and forth, back and forth. And he seemed to be very sad. Very often, he cried. But when he was completely disordered, he became laughter. Completely he laughed. He didn’t cry.
Then that means he already [got] into [the] vastness of existence. But a point is: he didn’t realize. He didn’t realize vastness, or truth. He didn’t realize the phenomenal world. He didn’t realize end of the phenomenal world, end of the suffering, limits of suffering. He didn’t realize. That is the point, alright?
That’s why here it says we should realize this. When you view human life, the human world according to this teaching, and practice on an everyday basis, if you practice like this, very naturally, you can realize. You can realize, you can attain a certain stage of the spiritual life. At that time, [at the] end of the suffering, you can cry, […] but [if you cry] through and through, completely cry, it turns into laughter – even though at that time you are not mentally disordered. Because you realize, you know pretty well, the relationship between the phenomenal world and the truth.
In the Zen stories, I think [it was] Yakusan Zen Master… when Yakusan Zen Master looked at the moon at night, he became a great laughter on the top of the mountains, and that sound of laughter echoed… I don’t know how many miles. [He laughs.] That story is really exaggerated… […] Anyway, the sound of his laughter echoed 20 miles or 40 miles away. That expression is exaggerated, [but it] means the limit of laughter is completely beyond laughing, because it’s penetrating all over. And the limit of suffering is completely vast, so you cannot cry.
Yesterday, during the [talk in] Alaska, I mentioned about this. [You know] Miss Universe? Miss Universe always cries at the last scene. [Laughter.] It’s not a very sad experience, it’s a very joyful experience! So why don’t you laugh? But she doesn’t laugh, she always cries at the last scene. [He laughs.] And then one student in Alaska [said], “Even though she cried, that is pretty normal. [Maybe] she has some problem?” I said, “No problem.” Even though she cried, no problem. It’s very natural, very natural.
[Tape break.]
… in order to get the better life. But on the other hand, you shouldn’t commit suicide with your suffering. So you have to take care of suffering day by day. And then you can really understand what the limit of suffering is. And then the limit of suffering is no more suffering.
That’s why […] it says Four Noble Truths. The Truth of the Suffering, and the Buddha says suffering is due to impermanence, and egolessness is due to suffering. You know, suffering is due to impermanence… it’s very interesting. Impermanence is not the idea of change, impermanence is energies […] which causes change to change. Alright? That is impermanence: the very basic function of the universe. This is, temporarily, we say impermanence. That’s why Dogen Zenji says, impermanence is buddha-nature.
So on account of the impermanence, there is suffering. So what is the suffering? That means the limit of suffering is impermanent. It means, suffering is no-suffering.
Why are we suffering? Because it is impermanent. […] It’s very difficult for us to know impermanence which has no flavors, no smells, no colors, no forms. That’s why through the idea of change you can experience in your daily life, we cannot realize what impermanence is, what the basis of change is, what the limits of change is. Limits of change or basis of change is completely nothing. You cannot say it’s change. Nothing to change. Just energies. Just moving.
So that’s why Buddha says, on account of impermanence we have […] suffering. But the basis of suffering is not suffering; that is impermanence. But in terms of change, that is suffering. Okay? [He chuckles.] It’s really suffering. But [if] you go through and through into the depths of suffering, it becomes impermanent.
Also, the egolessness is due to suffering. So […] on account of suffering, we can practice egolessness. It’s a very interesting [thing]: on account of suffering we can practice egolessness. Even [if] you don’t know egolessness, take best care of your suffering, through and through, and then you can touch the core of existence, so-called egolessness, nothing. Touch the core of existence on the basis of impermanence. That’s why no ego. That’s why suffering gives you lots of information, teachings. Very naturally, through the suffering you can get a taste of what the egolessness is.
But still there is a difference between the person who doesn’t realize and the person who realizes. That is a big difference. That’s why we have to practice on a daily basis, and realize it, and understand it, digest it, through your body and mind. Otherwise, even [if] Buddha says “suffering is due to impermanence,” you understand it, but even though you […] understand it, it doesn’t work in your daily life.
Just like a crazy person’s laughter. At the end of suffering, they laugh. But even though […] they become great laughter, it’s not great laughter just like Yakusan Zen Master. Completely different. He is a crazy person.
So you have to realize. That’s why it says here, one-mind is not a philosophical entity, this is the mind of all sentient beings, all of us. And this one-mind is really something interrelated, interconnected, interdependent with the phenomenal world and truth, constantly. There is no gap between.
Temporarily I say “end of the phenomena,” but there is no end. No end and no beginning; constantly working. But temporarily I can say “end of the suffering,” or “limits of the suffering,” “limits of the phenomena,” “limits of knowledge.” And then, that is the beginning of the universe. If you come to a dead end, that dead end is not a dead end, it’s a beginning, anyway.
Okay. Do you have questions about this?
49:20
Question: Hojo-san?
Katagiri Roshi: Hai.
Same person: I was wondering about two things. One is, when you use the term nirvana, what is this whole notion of nirvana being like some state that is not … like, pure activity, […] but more a state of being off someplace like in a heavenly realm. A common understanding of nirvana is sort of more separated from the day to day activity in life.
Katagiri Roshi: Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Same person: So I was wondering about that.
Katagiri Roshi: Yeah. Nirvana is misunderstood by many people. By us.
Because nirvana means to […] blow out, or extinguish. Or tranquility; something like this. That’s why nirvana [is referred] to as death. But death is life in Buddhism, so nirvana referred to as death is fine. Death is life in Buddhism, so you should understand nirvana extended into human life.
And the Buddha uses the term nirvana as the [highest] level, highest stage of spiritual life, more than enlightenment, or “holiness,” or supernatural power, something like this. More than this. And then the Buddha [says that] enlightenment, supernatural power, or holiness, all things comes into nirvana and [melt] away. This is called nirvana. Do you understand?
So nirvana is something more than enlightenment, something more than a divine state of spiritual life. Okay?
Same person: Would you say it’s a state of no-enlightenment?
Katagiri Roshi: Yeah, no enlightenment, you can say so. Yes.
Same person: Just doing.
Katagiri Roshi: Yes. You can say so, no-enlightenment. But no-enlightenment means experience of enlightenment is melted away in the vastness, so-called truth, one-mind. Because always there is the one-mind. And everything is melted away, constantly. You experience suffering, next moment, it’s melted away, just like a drop of dew is falling into the ocean. The moment your drop of dew is falling into the ocean is a reaction: suffering, pleasure, you know? Next moment, it is melted away in the ocean.
That is interrelation, interpenetration between truth and the phenomenal world. That’s why this is not ideas, this is human life. If you look at human life, you can really realize this.
So suffering is not always suffering. Through the suffering, you can really learn how deep human life is.
So that is called nirvana, we say nirvana.
Same person: Okay, well, why do we call that state of universal reality, or whatever you want to call it, why do we call that state of one-mind? Like, why do we use the term mind rather than universal energy or any other word we can come up with?
Katagiri Roshi: Well, mind, I don’t know, in English “mind” is not… In Chinese or in Japanese, “mind” is a little bit broad. I use “mind” but it’s not mind. The term mind I use is the mind including spirit, soul, or “psyche”… I don’t know. [He laughs.] “Psyche”? Whole stuff.
Same person: But even those are like terms of human psyche or consciousness.
Katagiri Roshi: Yes. […] If you use the term truth, or absolute, or the dharma-nature, that is kind of a philosophical term. But truth is not somewhere separate from you, truth is always with us. Anyway, we are living in the realm of truth, wherever you may go. If so, truth is found in us.
Same person: Oh. So mind…
Katagiri Roshi: And also, truth is completely beyond your speculation, but truth is something we should realize.
Just like nature. […] Nature is something far from you; you don’t understand real nature. Because if you understand real nature according to your […] cognition, you misunderstand nature, so that’s why always we destroy nature. But if so, shouldn’t we realize nature? If nature is always far from us, we don’t have any chance to understand nature, don’t you think so? So, nature is something beyond our cognition, but nature should be understood by our cognition. [He laughs.] When nature comes into our cognition, mind, at that time we say, “I understand nature.” But your understanding of nature is already something [“special”]. That’s why we have to polish, [make] our understanding [profound]. Okay?
[…] The same applies to the truth. Truth is completely beyond your control, your speculation. If so, we don’t have any chance to experience [it]. But practically, everyone experiences it. From day to day, century after century, many people, many ancestors experience truth. If so, truth is still found in our life, when the truth comes into our life. Our life means into the field of human cognition. That means mind. At that time, it is called truth.
That’s why we use mind. Do you understand? It’s alright?
Same person: Yes.
Katagiri Roshi: So, Buddhism means always, if you say, “there is a something which exists” – when you recognize something as an existence – we always understand that which exists in terms of the function of cognition. Without the function of cognition, we cannot recognize anything; we cannot say, “Roger exists.” If I say, “Roger exists there,” that means already there is a communication in terms of cognition.
So, not ontological existence. Okay? [He laughs.]
Same person: Right. That’s the only real perspective that you can come at anything with.
Katagiri Roshi: Yes. So if you recognize something, always there is a something which exists, always interrelated with you. That is a cognition. In the realm of cognition, something exists. We can recognize, we can see that something exists.
If you ignore this, your understanding becomes philosophical, ontological… something like that. But nothing exists without relationship with you.
So, in Buddhism we say, “all,” “all dharmas.” “All dharmas” [audio file glitch]. So even though you don’t see Lebanon, or tiny countries in Europe, still they exist. [All are] one of the all beings, all sentient beings. So those are connected with you. Without you, you cannot say, “All beings.” That is a point in Buddhism.
So that’s why we don’t discuss the one existence, one being, you know, as ontological or philosophical. […] At a certain period of time we explain, but it’s not the final goal. The final goal is to understand One Being in the relation with you.
Same person: That does seem unique to Buddhism…
Katagiri Roshi: Mm-hmm.
Same person:… because other religions don’t refer to mind.
Katagiri Roshi: No.
Same person: … You know, it’s more absolute and ontological.
Katagiri Roshi: Yeah. Right. Mm-hmm.
1:02:28
Question: Hojo-san? Can you say that the limit of suffering is like being at the end of your tether?
Katagiri Roshi: Suffering?
Same person: The limit of suffering? Can you say that’s like being at the end of your tether?
Katagiri Roshi: Temporarily I use “limits of suffering.” Limits of suffering… well, “end of rope” is alright.
When my mother died, I was 14. I cried. I cried all night. All of a sudden: [fwoosh], 180 degree turn over. [The] world becomes bright. That means [I realized my] mother [is] with me. But that is at the end of the crying. Crying, crying the whole night… and then something happened. So I didn’t feel sad…
So that means the limits of suffering, limits of crying and sadness, is not the sadness, it’s vastness. So you don’t know. So you experience something more than suffering or sadness. Do you understand what I mean?
For instance, zazen. Maybe some of you experience [that] you continue to do zazen with pain. Sometimes the pain is gone. I experience [that]. For a certain period of time, the pain is really awful. [He laughs.] But if you overcome this, pain is here, but pain doesn’t bother you.
So that is called “no pain, no suffering,” et cetera, according to the sutra. That teaching is really encouraging us to understand suffering or sadness in a broad perspective. Don’t accept suffering as simple suffering, all right? Suffering is suffering; that’s why you have to do something for it, because suffering is something more than suffering.
1:06:30
Question: Would you say that form or phenomena equals the truth?
Katagiri Roshi: Truth and the phenomena…
Same person: Are equal?
Katagiri Roshi: Equal? Equal is still, what would you say… yes, in a sense equal. [He laughs.] It’s not exactly equal. Maybe you may say so.
It’s not exactly equal. If you say equal, you know, A is A, [he laughs,] something like this, but it’s not A is A, it’s different. They are different.
So it’s pretty hard to say. Phenomena. Because truth is… well, I think the definition of the truth is explained in the next paragraph. It’s very difficult to say, but finally what you can say is, what is just is. [He laughs.] You know, trees are trees. That’s it.
Truth is, I always say, vastness, [or] oceans, like this. And then in the vastness of existence, […] all sentient beings live there. Whatever you do, always you do in the realm of the vastness of existence. Just like swimming in the ocean, alone. Completely beyond you survive or you don’t survive, or you want to swim or don’t want to swim – complete beyond this, your life is always going. You have to swim.
That practice tells you the vastness of existence, and also cognition of your existence right in the middle of vastness of the ocean.
So what makes you understand the vastness of existence and also each individual? Each individual, your life is right in the middle of vastness. But simultaneously, you live in the vastness. How to live? Just swim, beyond survive or not survive, die or … whatever.
That practice is called just oneness. One-mind, we say. Or, “the mind of all sentient beings.”
So it’s very difficult to say they are equal. No, not equal. But they are not different. They are working together, so they are not different. But they are not equal.
Still a few minutes. Do you have a question?
1:11:11
Question: Hojo-san, you also said […] if you understand or experience of liberation, then you can help all sentient beings. I wondered if you don’t understand, or you don’t experience liberation, if you can help all sentient beings.
Katagiri Roshi: Well, if you don’t understand liberation, you are already in the liberation, so you are already in the middle of buddha, or vastness of existence which is called liberation. Alright? If so, why don’t you do something?
Liberation means you have to live with the people, with all sentient beings, in peace and harmony. This is the liberation which you can experience practically. So as best as we can, we try to help. And then, very naturally, you can learn what liberation is.
1:12:40
Question: I was thinking that sometimes it seems… You have cautioned us about tasting truth and mistaking that for […] whole truth.
Katagiri Roshi: Whole truth?
Same person: Yeah. You said, for example, that the truth, like nature, enters into our cognition, and so we can understand it.
Katagiri: Mm-hmm.
Same person: And it is nature, or it is truth, but it’s already particular, individual […] truth. It seems to me that would be pretty tricky, it could be a little bit of a problem. I’m reminded, for example, again like you said, the 60s in the Bay Area, San Francisco, and people would experiment with drugs, and they would get a big insight. And many times, they felt already qualified to teach everybody. But they understood, you know… […] the teachers, they knew the whole truth. So I wonder how to be alert to that one.
Katagiri: That’s why I mentioned, no matter how often you experience that flash of lightning, through the nirvana or through zazen, anyway, you always offer that experience to the vastness of existence. That means that any kind of experience must be melted away in vastness. And then at that time, your experience [deepens].
For instance, I mentioned the other [day] the three types of ripeness, according to the persimmon. The first stage of ripeness or maturity is the fruit on the branch. The first lightness or maturity is getting the degree from the university. That is the fruit on the branch. Next, the second maturity is [that] the persimmon must become ripe, become red. That means after graduation, you have to forget your titles and jump into human society, share your life with all sentient beings. At that time, you don’t know what to do, because lots of cases come up. And then it is not mature yet. Through this real experience, the third maturity is the persimmon which is completely ripe and falls down to the ground and all the guts come out. That is called final maturity. This is called liberation, okay? Freedom.
That’s why we say nirvana. That is real nirvana. [He laughs.] All the guts come out! So nothing to be arrogant, nothing to attach to. No corners. No corners of your body; all very smooth. That is [egolessness].