Platform Sutra – Talk 6
April 17, 1987 Dharma Talk by Dainin Katagiri Roshi
List | Previous | Next | Series: Platform Sutra
Summary
Katagiri Roshi discusses “the conduct of not dwelling inwardly or outwardly, of coming and going freely, of casting away the grasping mind, and of unobstructed penetration.” He also discusses the statement that “if there were no people the ten thousand dharmas would not exist.” Buddhist teachings come from the human heart, not the other way around. There is a long question about how to relate to “non-attachment to objects” as an object.
Transcript
Listen to this talk on mnzencenter.org
0:00
Katagiri Roshi: Page 105:
“Good Knowing Advisors, the ability to cultivate the conduct of not dwelling inwardly or outwardly, of coming and going freely, of casting away the grasping mind, and of unobstructed penetration, is basically no different from The Prajna Sutra.”
(From The Sixth Patriarch’s Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra, published and translated by the Buddhist Text Translation Society.)
“The ability to cultivate the conduct of not dwelling inwardly or outwardly”: In this book, inwardly means seeing one’s own nature. Outwardly means the Buddhist scripture written in words.
So, the ability to cultivate the conduct of not dwelling inwardly or outwardly: this is the meaning of the prajna paramita in the Diamond Sutra. In this book […] the Sixth Patriarch attained enlightenment when he heard the passage of the Diamond Sutra saying a bodhisattva has his thought awakened without abiding anything whatever. Then he attained enlightenment.
And in the Lankavatara Sutra, D.T. Suzuki [talks] about this. His commentary says, page 95:
The Tathagata has no dwelling place in the sense that all his thoughts and doings have no exterior or ulterior objects in view to which he desires to adapt himself, and therefore that he is like the sun that shines on everybody just and unjust, or like the lily in the field that blooms in its best even when there is nobody around to admire its supra-Solomonic array.
(From Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, page 95.)
[There is some discussion about what “supra-Solomonic array” means. No one seems to know, or will say.] (Transcriber’s Note: This is a reference to the Sermon on the Mount: “Consider the lilies of the field” etc.)
So that without abiding anything whatever, that means purity. One’s original nature, the original nature of the self, is clean and pure when it is working in one’s life. It is not dwelling, it is working without abiding anything whatever.
D.T. Suzuki says, “… all his thoughts and doings have no exterior and ulterior objects in view to which he desires to adapt himself.” “Exterior and ulterior objects in view to which he desires to adapt himself”: this is a very common, usual attitude [or] tendency towards human life. We always do it. Very strongly, sometimes unconsciously, we do [this]. Is that clear?
Question: You mean adapting like sort of to mold ourselves to some belief system?
Katagiri Roshi: Belief system, and self-justification, and self-protection, in many ways.
Same person: Belief systems about ourselves and what we can do or can’t do.
Katagiri Roshi: Right.
I think if you read the agamas, Buddha’s life is just like that. You know, not everyone respected him. Some tried to hurt him, or tried to interrupt his life in many ways, religiously or [unintelligible]… But Buddha Shakyamuni always dealt with the situation without staying for long. Without staying for long doesn’t mean escaping; just to deal with the situation simply. But inside, I think, he seemed to suffer a lot in the sutras, but his behavior [or] doings are very simple.
For example, when he practiced takuhatsu, begging, [in one village he walked] from the beginning to end, but at that time the village people [were celebrating] something, so all the people decided not to give any offerings to the Buddha Shakyamuni. So he walked the village, but nobody gave anything. At the end of the village, he was a little bit hesitating to leave there, because he didn’t have anything to eat. So he thought he’d try to come back once again, but he left there. So that’s human feeling, human suffering there. He is a buddha, but he is also human.
(Returning to the sutra:)
“… [of not] dwelling inwardly and outwardly, of coming and going freely, of casting away [the grasping mind]…”
“Coming and going freely…”: […] When I [would go] down to the village to perform Buddhist services, after the service the village people wanted to talk with me. So finally I stayed long after performing services, sometimes all morning staying at one person’s house. So [my teacher said to me], “If you finish performing Buddhist service, you should leave as soon as possible.” And that is also pretty important for us: “coming and going freely.” It seems to be easy, but it’s not so easy.
“… of casting away the grasping mind”: this is also [that] very strongly, minutely, this grasping mind is always working in individual life. This is our everyday practice, “casting away the grasping mind.” I think you cannot cast away [grasping mind], you cannot take out grasping mind and throw it away. You cannot do it. So in order to do this, I think from moment to moment you must be just present there, and then next moment you have to do it with wholeheartedness. That [way], naturally, grasping mind drops off.
“… and of unobstructed penetration”: that is concentration, samadhi. Shikan, wholeheartedness, is basically no different from the Prajna Sutra; this is the meaning of prajna.
12:52
Next, page 107, [at the] bottom:
“Good Knowing Advisors, all Sutras and writings of the Great and Small Vehicles, the twelve divisions of Sutras, have been devised because of people and established because of the nature of wisdom. If there were no people the ten thousand dharmas would not exist. Therefore you should know that all dharmas are originally postulated because of people, and all Sutras are spoken for their sakes.”
I think here it says nothing [is] separate from a person, everything exists related with [the] person. Visibly, invisibly. Now that is most important. Is that clear? This [means] nothing exists without relating with you. Visibly, invisibly, consciously or unconsciously.
Maybe you have a question that, even though we don’t have any relation with, [say,] Japan, or tree, or bird, we believe birds exist. So very naturally we begin to argue. But whatever you say [about] birds: I know the bird now because they are singing now.
So we say a bird exists, but many birds seems not to have a relation with me now, but they exist. As long as they exist, they have close relation with me. So very naturally there is an idea of relation and not-relation. Whatever you say, non-relation means already you are thinking of it. [With] birds, you are thinking of the bird which has no relation with me: that is already you have a relation.
And also you say neutral: you don’t care. Beyond relation or no relation, does something exist? Like an unknown planet: it’s neutral, completely beyond your idea of relation or no relation. But even though you say neutral, that is already in your mind.
So from this point, without you, without a person, nothing exists. This is Buddhistic understanding, because it is [a] philosophical background based on the teaching of interdependent co-origination.
That’s [why] here it says, “all Sutras and writings of the Great and Small Vehicles, the twelve divisions of Sutras,”: […] In the commentary he talks about [these divisions of the sutras]. Look at page 108:
The twelve divisions of Sutra text are:
- Prose;
This is the usual sutra, we say.
- Verse;
- Transmitting of Predictions;
That is vyakarana; vyakarana means “predictions.” In the Lotus Sutra you will find a chapter named Vyakarana, “Prediction.” Buddha Shakyamuni gave predictions to 500 arhats and 500 lay people, et cetera.
- Interpolations;
In Sanskrit was say geya, “interpolations.”
- The speaking of Dharma without its having been requested;
- Discussion of causes and conditions;
- Analogies;
- Events of the past lives of the Buddhas;
- Events of the past lives of the Bodhisattvas and disciples;
- Writings which explain principle in an especially expansive way;
- Dharma which has never been spoken before;
- Commentaries.
Those are twelve kinds of sutras.
So […] the twelve divisions of Sutras “have been devised because of people…”: [There are] many people in this world, that’s why [there are] many sutras, many scriptures, and also many religions, many denominations.
“… and established because of the nature of wisdom.”: Because wisdom is one, but I think when wisdom starts to work in the human world, it think it takes [on] some form of it own. That is the form tree, the form of birds, and then the form of different personalities.
“If there were no people the ten thousand dharmas would not exist. Therefore you should know that all dharmas are originally postulated because of people, and all Sutras are spoken for their sakes.”
So I think the sutras and commentaries and thought, philosophies and psychologies, those things come from the human heart, human life. But when you deal with the sutras and scriptures and some teachings, very naturally people try to mold our life into the teaching, by strong belief of those teachings, forgetting that originally those teachings come from the human heart, human life. Usually our ways will be reversed. Do you understand?
So that’s why I always [say] you can read the scriptures and study, but you have to take time to digest. Anyway, to digest is very important for us. Otherwise you fall into the ism, and kind of, well, ideologies – [you] fall into pessimism, or optimism, some kind of ism, by strong belief of definite conclusions […] of outlook on life and the human world. And then you hold it strongly and you put your life into that ism. And then if you see somebody else who doesn’t believe the same teachings as you believe, then you are critical toward them and argue. So very naturally you are looking [at] the world in terms of your definite conclusion of life, according to [the] very important outlook on life and the world you have researched. That is very dangerous. Very naturally in the religious world, people fight.
Is that clear?
I mentioned the other day, […] according to the agamas the Buddha always [says] to accept the idea of the outlook on the life and the world, but you cannot hold [it] strongly and argue with people. You have to always practice coming and going freely.
So in Buddhism, Shakyamuni Buddha uses the term nirvana. Nirvana means you have to be free from any kind of experience, enlightenment or not enlightenment, mysticism and superpowers, whatever. All these experiences of “superpower” or “enlightenment” or “mysticism” should come into nirvana and [melt] away. That is called nirvana. So nirvana is the highest level of spirituality.
27:10
And then page 108:
“Some people are deluded and some are wise; the deluded are small people and the wise are great people. The deluded question the wise and the wise teach Dharma to the deluded. When the deluded people suddenly awaken and understand, their minds open to enlightenment and they are no longer different from the wise.
Alright, do you have questions? [The people are] very important, because without the existence of people you cannot see anything to exist. So in other words, everything is related with you. Everything: visibly, invisibly.
But among those people, there are two beings, the deluded and the wise. But the deluded and the wise are not separated. That’s why they are related: “The deluded are small people, the wise are great people. The deluded question the wise, and the wise teach dharma to the deluded. When the deluded people suddenly awaken and understand, their minds open to enlightenment and they are no longer different from the wise.”
“Good Knowing Advisors, unenlightened, the Buddha is a living being. At the time of a single enlightened thought, the living being is a Buddha.
Here [it is] different beings, when you become the deluded, when you become the wise. So when you are unenlightened, the Buddha becomes a living being. This is the attitude of your doings, every day; behavior and doings. When you’re mad, Buddha becomes a living being, [the] usual being – mad being. Okay? When you smile, you are buddha. Even in a single moment. That’s why next, at the time of a single enlightened thought, enlightened mind, then a living being becomes a buddha.
So originally you are buddha, but buddha appears in many ways. Usual beings, hungry ghost beings… at least you appear always in the ten categories of existence. So that’s why a Zen master in Japan says, “Buddha is just like a double mask.” Do you understand? You are originally buddha, but according to your behavior and doings, you become lovely, you become wise, you become deluded.
So this is a fact of your life. Even though you believe you have attained enlightenment, you never know how long you can maintain that experience of enlightenment, because every day is really something. So you have to pay careful attention to your behavior and attitude.
[…] Here it says,
“Therefore you should know that the ten thousand dharmas exist totally within your own mind.
“Your own mind” – this mind means [mind] related with your physical conditions, so mind and body.
“Why don’t you, from within your own mind, suddenly see the true suchness of your original nature?
So, what is buddha-nature? What is buddha? That’s why Dogen Zenji [talks] about the buddha-nature very in detail in the Shobogenzo.
Question: So this double mask is the ongoing need to awaken to [unintelligible]?
Katagiri Roshi: [Mm-hmm.]
Same person: So this double mask you refer to…
Katagiri Roshi: Double mask means the dualistic world. The dualistic word is produced by your… well, your attitude or doings of not coming and going freely. That is, very naturally, you appear in many ways. According to Buddhist teaching, at least ten categories of existence: hells, hungry ghosts, fighting spirits, etc.
34:45
Question: I have a question […] on the first thing that you said. Now there is the sound of the bird, and I have a vision of the floor, and an emotion in my chest.
Katagiri Roshi: Mm-hmm?
Same person: So I want to know how these three are grasped as objects, and how they are not [grasped] as objects. How is it that I create them as objects or don’t create them as objects?
Katagiri Roshi: […] Do you understand his meaning? Your question is, how do we create the object or not object? Related with the three things: floor, birds, and […] emotions?
Different person: Are you asking that in relationship to the inwardly and outwardly?
Questioner: Objects…
Katagiri Roshi: How do we relate?
Questioner: Well, you mentioned both having objects and not having objects. So I want to know what is the difference? How do we relate to objects, how do we relate to not-objects?
Katagiri Roshi: Well, not-object, or not related with object, or not object – that is already the [world] is in the system of cognitions. Do you understand? You are already living in the realm of cognition, thinking. So you say, “This object, birds, doesn’t relate with me now, because I am related with the floor,” we say. So immediately the birds and floors already become objects, which you relate with. So whatever you say, everything is object, with which you you relate. Whatever you say, not related or neutral object, all are related with you.
[Is that] what you mean?
Questioner: No, because you referred beyond that to something else that you called not-relating or not being attached to objects…
Katagiri Roshi: If you […] see deeply your existence, how your life relates with all living beings, visibly [or] invisibly, then you can see the state of the bottom of existence. That is completely beyond your thinking or not thinking. So all are completely concepts: that is the teaching on interdependent co-origination. From this point, beyond your thinking or not thinking, all are connected.
That’s why this earth is connected with unknown planets which we don’t know. Now [how is] the earth hanging in space? We don’t know. But, it is there. So all are related. We don’t know [the] reason why, but you can see the fact that the earth is hanging in space, you know? I don’t know if it’s the appropriate word, “hanging” or [something else]. Nothing to hang [on], but earth is in space.
So, many things we don’t know, but they are supported human world.
Questioner: I don’t know if you are understanding me; you seem to be answering some sort of different question. There’s the floor in front of me. Now, when I think about it, I create the floor as an object, you know, in relation to me. But the teachings say that we shouldn’t have an object, that’s a mistake of some kind: [excreting] myself in relation to the floor is a mistake, it’s delusion. So, what is it like? What is the experience of not having an object? Because I don’t believe that I always have an object.
Katagiri Roshi: Yes.
Questioner: So what’s subtly an experience? What is the difference when there’s an object [or] where is no object?
Katagiri Roshi: That’s why according to Buddhist psychology, I think when you see the object, a floor, I think […] we [are not] exactly seeing the object as it is, because the object is [coming] into your organs, seeing eyes and hearing ears, et cetera, and [is] assimilated. And then, consciousness sees that floor in your organs. And then we say it is floor. So the floor we have understood is a reflection from the human mind; that’s why Buddhism says it in that way. And also the human mind, human organs are already produced by conditional elements [and factors], so [there is] a very particular characteristic there. So [it’s] very complicated.
So personally, if I see the floor, [there is] your understanding and my understanding. That is the floor, we say; that is an object named floor. But the true nature of the floor is beyond our understanding, our experience, because it is exactly same as you, your existence – basically. But if you see [the] floor, human mind comes first –I there – and then, like this. But basically there is no discrimination between.
So that’s why we have to see human beings, the human world very deeply, and what is […] the ultimate state of being.
[Tape break.]
Questioner: … I’m in discrimination, and that’s what’s happening, and I have a choice between that or some future seeing of ultimate nature. You’re making it sound very different than my present experience.
Katagiri Roshi: [Yes,] present experience is […] already in the realm of cognition. That’s why we believe “this exists.” So if you see the suffering, that is suffering as a fact.
But originally, the suffering, yes, we believe it is still real, but it’s not real. You can experience [this], don’t you [think]?
Questioner: Well, that’s what I’m trying to talk about.
Katagiri Roshi: Yes.
Questioner: You make it sound very different, not related at all to the present.
Katagiri Roshi: It’s related. We don’t ignore. [But] our [Buddhistic] effort is […] how we should understand [the floor] as it is. And then if you understand as it is, next what we have to do is, how we should live there. Not only in the level of cognition, or not only the objective state of existence – beyond this, how do we live? Related with the floors, and the eyes, and all living beings. This is Buddhist effort.
But usually, we are always seeing the world and seeing the people in terms individual experience. That’s why, individual experience is fine, but Buddhist effort is [to ask] what is individual experience once again, and then try to understand deeply.
Do you have something to say to his question?
Question: I don’t think I really understand your question.
Questioner: Do you think you understand my question?
Katagiri Roshi: I think so, but… not. So, can’t you?
Different person: I think maybe it has something to do with time.
Another person: It was interesting that when [he] asked the question about, um, […] he’s making it sound like there’s some difference between his explanation and your experience now. So, I’m wondering if he could repeat again what might be… to relate what he’s talking about to your experience, how you might experience that now?
Questioner: Well, let me try it from a different point of view.
Katagiri Roshi: Excuse me. Your question is, your experience of the floor as an object. Okay? This is a fact. But your real question is, how can we know the object which has no relation, [or is] free from your experience.
Questioner: Okay.
Katagiri Roshi: Is that what you mean?
Questioner: Um, I don’t think so.
Katagiri Roshi: Okay. We can listen once again.
Questioner: Okay, I’m referring to, if I see the floor, then I’ve created objects. Okay, this is delusion. So I’m asking, what is the difference between the experience of the floor as object [or] as delusion, or between pure vision, true vision of the floor. And you’re making it sound like you’re talking about some… There’s no relation, or some other experience. You’re not answering my question. Like, Dogen says, “From the first, dullness and distraction are struck aside,” he doesn’t say, “Some day you will see the truth and then dullness and distraction will be struck aside.” But you seem to be saying that. You’re not answering my question.
Katagiri Roshi: I think a little bit the spiritual life… […] Uh, how can I say it? [The] quality of spiritual life is based on two points. One is awareness, awakening. Okay? Seeing deeply the ultimate nature of existence. That is awareness, or enlightenment, we say. Second is salvation.
The first one, awakening, is experienced with wisdom, deep knowledge. Okay? And salvation is practice itself.
So, a spiritual life consists of oneness of awareness and salvation. That is called faith, we say. With faith you can understand the total picture of existence, related with the delusion of the object and not deluded, purity of the object. That is the total picture. They are connected with each other.
But, usually we are always separate. So if you want to practice spiritual life, I think you have to see how the deluded world and also purity of the world are working together, interdependently. So for this, I think we need both: awareness and also salvation. […] I don’t know if salvation is [the appropriate] word or not. Salvation is practice itself. Okay?
So how can you practice? Practice is, I think we can say, flow, activity. I always [say this]. Just do it, just something going. So how can you do it? I think we need a form. When you do gassho, this is a form. So you have to put yourself in the form, and then you should take care of the form with wholeheartedness. This is immediately [what] is called practice, and within the practice, salvation. You are saved – from the idea of [delusion] of object or from purity of object.
Because, originally, what makes it possible for [the] two ideas to exist? This is a question. That is [the] ultimate state of beings. So very naturally, you must understand that, the ultimate state of existence, and also you have to live there. For this, how? Two ways: awakening, and also salvation.
So, oneness, both are one. So you have to do it. At that time, you can know it.
Is that okay?
That is so-called faith, we say. Otherwise, psychologically, philosophically, we discuss, we don’t understand it. Still separation there.
So how can you be free from? […] How can we understand that oneness? So that is salvation, we say salvation. But salvation is what? Salvation comes from understanding? No. Experience? No. That is philosophical speech and religious philosophy, you know? So […] you cannot get [it]. So salvation should come from flow of practice, flow of activities.
For this, we need a form. Okay? The form should should be understood very deeply in terms of religious philosophy; that is awareness. And also, experience. We have to understand deeply.
Do you have for something to say to his question? Is that okay?
Question: So to understand deeply the floor as object, what Robert’s asking, is really to take care of the floor.
Katagiri Roshi: Yeah, I think so…
Same person: Because you see you are interconnected with the floor and that you’re supported by the floor. So to take care of the floor means that you really respect it as a buddha. Is that what you’re saying?
Katagiri Roshi: Mm-hmm. Sure.
Not separated, you know; [delusion] of floor and purity of the floor are the same. But […] they are not the same, they are different. But they are not different. That is called oneness. That’s why if you study Buddhism, [we always say], “one is all, all is one” – what do [we] mean? And “form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” They are not separate, but if you say it in words, there is a separation.
So I don’t know how to say it. But constantly we have to say it. So Nagarjuna always [says], “Everything is emptiness.” Yes. But emptiness is emptiness. And then next, emptiness of emptiness is emptiness. Constantly, we have to say [so]. So forever you have to argue; forever you have to say, “Where is the salvation?” “Where is the salvation” means where is peace?
Can you see the limitation of human knowledge?
Questioner: Well, it sounds to me like you’re pointing out the limitation of knowledge, but in referring me beyond knowledge. So I appreciate that. But you seem to also just be ignoring the sense of knowledge and any usefulness of that.
Katagiri Roshi: No, not…
Questioner: And you seem to be refusing to answer my question…
Katagiri Roshi: No, not ignoring, but I think you should know the limitation of knowledge. If you see the limitation of knowledge, [that] is simultaneously great power [or] strength which makes your life turn. So realization of the limitation of knowledge is simultaneously… [no] limitation. Free from knowledge. So not separate.
That’s why what we can talk about is knowledge, which is limited. I cannot talk about no limitation of knowledge. No. If I talk about no limitation of knowledge, it is already [limitation]. So I cannot say. But that is important, because it exists with me. So I have to live there, because I want to be saved, I want to be peaceful. That is a peaceful word. So very naturally, how can I live?
So salvation is necessary for us. Peace, harmony, is necessary for us. That’s why Buddhist psychology and Abhidharmakosha constantly talk about human consciousness. Do you understand?
And finally, Buddhism, the Abhidharmakosha [talks about] about not talking about no limitation of knowledge. They are talking about the complete limitation, perfect limitation of knowledge, you know? End of the knowledge, very in detail. And then, the Abhidharma [says] you have to go beyond this. Okay?
So how can you go beyond this? This is expressed in the word called negative: no. “No ultimate nature of existence”; something like that. That’s it. But that no idea of no limitation is already limited. So what we can do is, according to our explanation, we have to go through and through, you have to go to that limitation of knowledge, and then you realize it. At that time, your life is completely turned at a hundred and eighty degrees.
That is salvation.
But when we are not enlightened, how can we attain enlightenment? That is so-called practice, that’s why the buddhas and ancestors put you in the practice. But we don’t believe this is the practice of salvation; we don’t believe it.
So I’m not [ignoring]. But I always taste how limited knowledge is, how knowledge and human speculation, human cognition is limited. Emotionally and intellectually. We have to understand [this].
Question: Hojo-san? When you say “taking care of the floor as buddha,” that sounds like it’s coming from very much the delusional side. Because to say, “take care of the floor,” immediately there is a separation between…
Katagiri Roshi: Yes, that’s right.
Same person: … yourself and the floor, and there’s also the activating of the belief system. It sounds like your belief system that “I have to take care of this as a Buddha.” So there’s some idea of what a buddha is, et cetera, et cetera.
Katagiri Roshi: Yes. That’s why Dogen Zenji [says], what is the buddha-nature you believe? That’s why Joshu Zen Master says, “dog has no buddha-nature.” And sometimes he says, “dog has buddha-nature.” That is our belief system you mentioned, you know? So whatever you say – […] “I believe the truth that we are buddha” – this is already limited. So that’s why Joshu has to say, “no buddha.” Okay?
But how can you know true buddha? That’s why Dogen Zenji finally says “no buddha” is pretty close to the true buddha-nature. That’s it. That’s why finally we use the negative term. So again and again we have to use a negative term, and to awaken ourself. Is that clear?
So that is what? That is a practice already. We have to practice, we have to deal [with]. How can we deal with the floor? That is a point. When you practice, there is a certain form. We need this; it is necessary. Because there are many forms to use to deal with the floor – according to individuals’ characters and personalities, very different. That’s why form should be refined, in order to be saved in the world of you and floors, beyond the delusion of object or purity of object. Because where is salvation? Salvation is right there, in the practice.
Same person: Mm-hmm. So it’s not really possible for you to say what it’s like to be exactly in the flow experience, or in the non-discriminating experience, because once you say that you’re not there? Is that one thing that you’re saying?
Katagiri Roshi: Beg your pardon? What did you say?
Same person: Once you try to explain what the difference is… what I understood Robert’s question to be is, he was asking you to explain what the difference is in terms of experience, between the delusional side and the flow experience. But you can’t really, it’s an impossible task to explain the difference, because the explanation is only within the delusional side.
Katagiri Roshi: Well, you can talk about what the difference is, but if you come to the limitation of the difference in a term, you have to go beyond. There is no word.
So that’s why in The Awakening of Faith, how can you reach the stage of a buddha? The Awakening of Faith says if you want to reach the buddha stage as a final goal, you have to realize through and through [the] minute vibration of consciousness. That’s it. So that is what we can do, always explain what minute vibration of consciousness.
So that’s why we can talk about [the] difference, but it’s very difficult to talk about oneness of, you know, two things. But, pretty close: we can talk about oneness pretty close. But not exactly oneness. So if you want to experience total peace or so-called salvation… well, we don’t know. I cannot talk about it. So all I have to do is to practice. That’s it.
So finally there is some gap between the limitation of knowledge and also eternity, truth. We see the small gap there, a very thin gap. For us, thin gap between this huge gap. But in human knowledge, we want to know how can we fill it with stuff. We want to know how can we go to the truth, free from that [word]. That is always [what] we want to know, but it’s impossible, actually. Because it’s one, oneness; phenomena and the truth are one.
So very naturally what you can do is, through and through, you have to go deeply [into] the limitation of human experience; that’s it. And then if you reach there, then, simultaneously, the limitation of experience is simultaneously the truth, eternity. That’s why The Awakening of Faith [talks] about this, about how we can reach the buddha stage.
Question: Harmoniously [diffusing]?
Katagiri Roshi: Mm-hmm.
[Pause.]
I’m sorry; still… […] [He laughs softly.]
If you have something you can tell him. Okay?
1:08:10
Katagiri Roshi: Do you have something?
Question: I have a question, Roshi, which I think might be related to that, but I’m not sure. But it is related to something Mike said in his talk the other day, about lay practice and priest practice, and how Dogen says in two different places different things. You run across those contradictions often, it seems, in Buddhism: is that to try to take you beyond, to get you to that limitation of knowledge?
Katagiri Roshi: Mm-hmm. Yes. Dogen Zenji mentions [that] in priest life. Why Dogen Zenji [says] priest life is the highest level of spiritual life [for] humans, [and] on the other hand, no limitation, you know? […] So that is pretty contradictory. But what if you come to the dead-end limitation of lay life? Very naturally you can go beyond this, so you want to do something. Do you understand?
The same applies to the realization of limitation of human knowledge, and then you can go beyond. It’s not your business, it’s not individual business. It’s really the Buddha’s business.
Is that clear? [He laughs.]
For instance, I always [say], you can study the station master and how can you become a station master, what is a station master’s business and duties, you know? As a lay Buddhist, as a professional, you can study. But when you really want to to be a station master, you have to be. So how can you get into the profession of station master? You have to know the limitation of station master, looking at the different […] lay station master. Do you understand?
But if you try to explain, there are two things, always. But actually, not two: one. So very naturally […] you can find two different emphasis in Dogen’s [writing], which seems to be contradictory, but he accepted both worlds, not ignored. People always [say] Dogen always emphasizes [that] the priest life is highest, but I don’t think so. It is not discrimination.