It’s All Happy, Merry, and Bright →

It’s potentially an odd time of year for a Zen Buddhist, at least it has been for this Zennist. I didn’t grow up Buddhist, and my childhood was more than a couple years ago, so “Merry Christmas” was a pretty standard greeting at the end of December. It was ubiquitous, and subliminally assumed that everyone celebrated Christmas, and if you didn’t, it didn’t matter much anyway. Little thought was put into the notion that anyone wouldn’t celebrate it. After all, everyone was off work, so ergo, everyone must celebrate it. Well, except for the Chinese restaurants and movie theaters, and a couple other businesses. But, they didn’t celebrate anyway, being non-Christian and all, so no big deal.

Then, eventually people began to understand that Chanukah wasn’t the Hebrew word for Christmas, it wasn’t marked at the same time, and noted for something really different. So, “Happy holidays” was rolled out, there was even a song by some crooner, and hey, New Year day is just around the corner, so there were two holidays to be happy about, so that was fine. It was even acknowledged that other people celebrated something different, and wishing them any kind of Christmas made a lot of assumptions that demonstrated a lack of understanding about how others might feel about what was essentially not “their” holiday. Santa Claus was for everybody, he was an equal opportunity chimney slider, so slipping into “ Merry Christmas” every now and then wasn’t terrible, just an autopilot statement, much like “Have a nice day.”.

There came a time after I started practicing Zen fully that “Merry Christmas” was right out, and even “happy holidays” seemed somehow dualistic. There were even a couple years where I didn’t celebrate at all. I was living alone, and it was really just another day. In a way, it was very liberating, not having all the demands of family and present buying and all the other baggage that comes along with it. It showed my total non-attachment to a holiday that on so many levels was definitely not Buddhist, at least so I thought. And that was fine for that time, I suppose it was something I needed to do to further my practice. Eventually I did get invited to some dinners, but the words Merry and Christmas were never uttered by me, not next to each other in that sequence anyway. I wasn’t declaring “war on Christmas” any more than I was the winter solstice; it just didn’t feel like “mine” to celebrate.

Eventually I saw that feeling had nothing to do whatsoever whether I thought of it, or anything else, as “mine.” Whenever I did that, it was setting me in opposition to “yours,” which rarely works out well. Sure, it’s a good thing that I climb into my bed instead of yours, so I’m not getting all “We Are the World,” “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing,” attached to the Absolute here. But neither am I attaching to the Relative where “this” doesn’t intertwine inextricably with “that.” It should probably be written as thisandthat, but it’s the spaces between words and thought that help make sense of any of it.

Likewise, when I start thinking of “this” day as holy, that I start appending any meaning onto something that is totally arbitrary, that the potential for problems come. Woody Guthrie didn’t write “This Land is My Land, That Land is Your Land, so Get the Hell Out of My Land.” There are all those people throughout the world to whom December 25 means nothing more than that it’s not the 24th anymore. That some people are now virtually demanding that everyone wish everyone else a “Merry Christmas,” and that anyone who doesn’t is a subversive and should “Get the Hell Out of My Land” strikes me as a textbook example of greed anger and delusion, and not just in a Buddhist sense.

There’s really no reason to think of Monday as worse than Saturday, or December 25th is superior to the 26th. Zen practice has taught me that it’s not one, and not two. So if someone will be happier when wished a Merry This, I’ll wish them one. If they will appreciate a Happy, Wonderful, have a Happy. If they’re a little down on one day or the day after, wish them a whatever will make them feel better that day. If I’m paying attention, I’ll notice when someone leans to heavily on the “not one” side, and who is a little too “not two.” If in some skillful way I can help them think of any day being a good day, I should do that.

May all beings be happy every day, not on just an arbitrarily chosen one.

‘‘Tis the season to be jolly,” right? When ‘tisn’t it?

What's Left?

Three symptoms of being unawakened are said to be greed, anger, and delusion. Concrete ways to replace them would be to act in accordance with the Four Immeasurables—lovingkindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. You could also practice the Paramitas—the Perfection generosity, morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom. These are often combined into “morality, intense concentration, and wisdom”—or "sila, samadhi, and prajna.” We can intellectualize them, and make up hypothetical scenarios about how we would do all these things, and invariably, we'll be comparing them to the opposites, which is fine—this is greedy, this is being generous. That's not being dualistic, that's a recognition of the reality in which we live. We might reflect that “I shouldn't have taken the last slice of pizza, that was greedy of me. Next time I'll make sure everyone else has had enough first.”

Unless we are deeply reflecting only on our own behavior, the comparison is with someone else will entail duality. “That (political party) (class of people) (race) (gender) (ethnicity) (religious practice) is really evil! Those greedy (fill in blank) are really ignorant! They don't pay attention to anybody other than themselves!” You might even call it a samadhi gap, if you're in a global conflagration frame of mind. You're not in a samadhi race, even moreso when the other party doesn't even know they're competing in the "Who's more meditative" contest. Nowhere in the perfections, Immeasurables, Precepts, Sutras, or what mom told you does it say that having a sense or superiority, morally or otherwise, is proper. “My” righteousness, is more righteous than "yours," isn't a mark of anything other than this sense of superiority. What it makes it even more interesting is that you spout about how the “other” side is trying to divide us into “us” and “them.”

It's as easy as taking candy from a baby to point out the greed in others. It may not even be an incorrect assessment of their actions. We probably don't know what led to this greed—it could be childhood poverty, it could just be because a neighbor or political candidate or even religious figure—said it was alright, that it's understandable and justified. If you're in the 99%, you may feel you're being treated unfairly by the 1%, and maybe you are. The 1% probably thinks they worked hard for their financial success, and the rest of you are just leeches, welfare queens, and maybe even genetically inferior. In some cases a sense of entitlement may trump an equal playing field.

Some may take to physical violence to show their anger over this sense of injustice. If for no other reason than "they're" not behaving as "we" think they should be, and we've got to “show them,” there will always be another “them” to anger us. It could be the result of the other guy “threw the first punch.” What caused this to seem like a good idea? It could be an childhood where beating or at least berating was hanging in the air. Maybe it was “falling in with the wrong crowd.” It could also be some plain old garden variety really misguided thinking.

Some may say things that are perceived as malicious—a form of verbal violence. In response, those who were being maligned may retaliate with malicious vitriol of their own. Sometimes one side of the words may try to prevent the other side of the words from even saying those words, or maybe just to prevent them from saying them to anybody else. There may even provocateurs who are really on one side, who join the other side while not really having forsaken their own side, to contribute some verbal vitriol and to elicit some perceived “intolerant” behavior from the side whom they haven't actually joined, but happen to be on the same side of the barricade, but whose side they really aren't actually on but appear to be. They're loud and obnoxious to the other side, while “telling it like it is” to the first side. Maybe they got yelled at a lot when they were kids, or have a spouse or boss that thinks that whomever yells loudest wins the battle. Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it, much in the same way that you can say how you don't agree with them. The "freedom of speech" pendulum swings both ways. No one has a lock on it, regardless of how loudly you say it.

“It seemed like a good idea at the time” isn't going to stand up to any scrutiny in the long run. “I know what's best” may be difficult to prove, especially when the other side says the same thing. “God is on our side” when said by both sides, presents another problem, especially when you can't really ask who is right about it. “It's God's will” is likewise going to be a bit tricky to prove. When clouded by verbal or physical violence, it's easy for thinking to fall into the “fog of war.” That's just what it is though—foggy thinking. That fog can really thicken the thinking when there's a crowd of equally foggy thinkers in our bubble, because when in our bubble, who's going to say anything to the contrary? What brought about the verbal violence or the violent actions? If you're in a Buddhist bubble, some may even confuse “Right View” with Right Opinion, which I'm pretty sure doesn't appear in any Sutra.

I'm also pretty sure you can pick out a number of the scriptures right from the first spin of the wheel onward that none of these actions, thoughts, and words really contribute to a sense of permanent satisfaction for any period of time, especially when based on the us/them divide. In the heat of the moment though, Right View may just not feel that right. It may even seem so unsatisfactory in the moment, that it can't possibly be Right, right? “Right View is No View” just is not going to cut it when it's all about the "My View". Deep down we really want to be able to justify the adrenaline rush of confrontation, and don't care about whether it's going to last. The “living in the moment” crowd might even use that rush as the justification itself, since it's happening in this moment, and this is the only moment there is, and it feels good, so ergo that's “thusness,” right?

Admittedly, it can be really tough to have those kumbaya, “We are the World,” “I'd like to teach the world to sing,” moments with everyone all the time, especially when they seem really disinterested in sharing that can of soda with you, unless “sharing” equals pouring it over your head. So, what do we do when all this decidedly un-Buddha-like behavior manifests itself in us? For me, the first step is to step back from the abyss and reflect on what is Buddha-like or not-Buddha-like. It may appear at that moment that the sword cutting through my perceived opponent's neck is less appropriate than Manjushri's sword cutting through my delusions. That reflection may even show me that my perception that there are “wrongs to be righted” and “foes to be fighted,” is not quite on the mark. My perception of the wrong and the foe may more accurately start with my perception being the problem, and then maybe everybody else has an opinion and perception that's a misguided as my own. And maybe at that moment, perceiving emptiness and mistaking that for equanimity may be as empty as my previous attachment to the form of fight that seemed appropriate. Half-way is better than no way, but it can just as easily be said not to be “The Way.”

“Not having preferences” might seem like walking away from bombs exploding, but it may also be noticing that there are bombs exploding. The preference in this case that would be “not had” could very well be the preference to not get involved at all. Selfish reasons, lazy reasons, dualistic reasons masquerading as non-attachment would still be subject to Manjushri's slice of wisdom. Then not “having preferences” may first be transformed into “not having a clue” as to what is correct action in a situation. Then what? Chant at least silently, take refuge, until the thoughts of anger can no longer get a foothold. Chant a Sutra if I remember one, mentally bow to all beings, whatever it may take to get out of the cave of aversion and hatred.

Some clarity may come that makes it evident that just as my karma has created the moment I'm experiencing, just as the karma of all others has created the moment they are experiencing. The karma of this moment will create the karma of the next, and that rather than being doomed by my past choices, I can see it as an opportunity to create more wholesome karma. Maybe others will make that choice also, maybe not. But since my choice is as dependent on the causes and conditions of their choices, maybe even my momentary choice sets in motion a cascade of karma that is of benefit to all beings. I can't really be all that concerned with their action.

The tenth of the Oxherding pictures is of the Bodhisattva going into the marketplace with outstretched arms. Outstretched arms in the context of engagement in social change does not necessarily mean taking up arms. Arms outstretched to hurl a Molotov cocktail, is probably not a way to avoid doing any harm. Peaceful engagement may not feel saving all beings, it may not even seem like helping all beings, it may not even be being nice to all beings, but at least I can try to ask if I can help.

When you subtract the greed, the anger, and the delusion, what's left?  I'll leave that answer up to you, Buddha.

Buddha bows to Buddha.

http://nobodhiknows.blogspot.com/2017/02/whats-left.html

Claw Marks

Imagine that Nagarjuna was at a dinner, and he had the job of serving the dessert. “Ok, Bob, you and Mary, you both get pie. Now, Bob, you get pie, and Mary, you get no pie. Now Bob, you get no pie, and Mary you do get pie. Now, neither of you get pie.” And so the dinner is ruined. And he wonders why he sees all these dinner invitations go out and they all say, “And don't bring Nagarjuna. He's such a killjoy.”

The Three Dharma Seals are impermanence, no-self, and dissatisfaction (sometimes called suffering). I think it's pretty easy to wrap our heads around impermanence, things go impermanent on us all the time. It got to the point where the string on my mala didn't break, the mala just “went impermanent.” Have a bad day at work or an argument with the spouse, and unemployment or sleeping on the couch make suffering very obvious. But this no-self thing…just seems that  “if I want pie, then I WANT PIE. The only way I'm going to be “one with the pie” is when it's settled in my stomach.”

I've been talking a corresponding with someone who is totally befuddled by “no-self.” He's gotten to the point where he's hesitant to use the word “I,” at least when speaking in Zen context. I'm not sure, but I can imagine him having some guilt in everyday conversation. “Who wants more pie?” “Me!” “I do!” “Er, hmmmm, um eh…” and Greg gets no pie. 

And there's the rub. We hear we're “one with everything,” so technically eating pie should be satisfying, but right now, the lack of blueberries is causing me great dissatisfaction. But we keep hearing that “I, I, I,” “me, me, me," ”mine, mine, mine” is bad. “I'm so confused….er, somebody's confused, no, wait, All is confused! Now give me pie, and make it all better!”

“All beings are no-beings, thus are they called ‘beings’.” The Diamond Sutra teaches us this, but without a teacher, it's probably inscrutable, unless you're Huineng or Seung Sahn. The Heart Sutra says “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” Again, with no teacher, blank stares most likely ensue. There are a couple of problems most people have with these Sutras, starting with the paradoxes and apparent contradictions they have in just about any given sentence. The second is that they appear contradictory to “real life.”

All or any of those statements may be effective in giving the shock to the system that gives rise to the “Don't Know Mind” of being awake. Conversely, certitude is the gateway to hell. “Oh, no! Not another paradox!” Knowing and understanding don't serve a purpose. Given everything being in a state of flux, what is there we can successfully hang onto?  If we take a step, will the ground be there to support us? Sure, in most cases, but there's always the possibility of the earth opening its gaping hungry-ghost-like hole and swallow us whole. Ask anyone who has lost a car in a sinkhole. Go to bed one night, your wife is there, wake up the next morning, she and the kids are gone. That's a concrete example of the rug, chair, and the rest of the house and everything you've come to expect to be there, and then not, all being pulled out from under you. The issue comes not from contradictions, or paradox, maddening wordplay, or general madness. Where is the “self” that can be assumed to exist predictably? Where is the self that exists in flux and paradox.

The Four Attachments are “Sensual attachment,” “Attachment to opinions,” “Attachment to rites and rituals,” and “Attachment to the idea of self.” Sensual attachment? As simple as “I like pie, pie makes me happy. No pie, no happy.” It's comfortable for home to be home, until home is no longer home. We assume it will be home, because it's always been, and it's been as predictable as foot hitting ground when walking. I get pie because I always get pie. But then, no home, no pie. Attachment to opinions? Name it, politics, religion, anything we’ve been warned against talking about at the dinner table. “Apple is better than rhubarb!” “Them’s fightin’ words!” Attachment to rites and rituals? Anything from, “I practice Soto Zen, and we face the wall, so you Seon guys are just plain wrong,” to “Dinner is always at 6:00, why isn’t it ready? And where's the pie?”

Attachment to the idea of “self?” All the above, plus anything else that shows “I” to be separate all the time from “you,” like I'm right and you're wrong. Note that it’s attachment to the “idea” of self. “Ideas” are something we make up in our heads. Conventionally, “I” go to work at “my” job. “I” sleep in “my” bed. If I find you in it, I may have an issue with it, not only because of my attachments, but because it’s incorrect behavior for you in this situation. It’s up to me to respond in appropriate way in turn to that though. Showing more “me,” will most likely get you to show “you.” It’s very easy to be threatened by someone else’s attachment the the “idea of self” when it comes in conflict with my “idea of self.” Even being hesitant to use “I” as the subject of a sentence does no good if there's an underlying “I” who secretly still is attached to it.

We need to admit to having attachments though, especially if we ever want to become non-attached, much like an alcoholic needs to admit to having a drinking problem before anything can be done about that. Denying attachment doesn’t help, and acceptance without realizing that change is possible and inevitable is likewise no help. Despite the inevitability of the object of attachment changing, unless we put in some effort, the change may not be a change into something more wholesome. Being a drunk and turning into a junkie isn’t quite as wholesome as being a drunk and recovering by whatever means keeps you from getting drunk again. 

An alcoholic who is still drinking can’t help someone who is trying to get sober if he isn’t at least making an attempt himself at getting sober. A bodhisattva can’t be of much help to a sentient being unless there is active effort in an attempt to be less attached, especially to the idea of self. We traverse the path of the bodhisattva without attachment to the “idea of being a bodhisattva,” or the attachment to the idea that a bodhisattva can “save” another being, or to the idea of “other beings” for that matter.  Attachments are attachments, and as such are hindrances to uncovering the True Nature of compassion. Diligent effort is required, and once one attachment is shed, we need to vigorously cultivate the shedding, and also cultivate not creating new attachments, and then cultivate not clinging to non-attachment as well. 

But let’s face it, we really like some of these attachments. Some have worked well, until they no longer do. What good is something that no longer works, even though we still want to think it does? We may fight against letting go of it, we may cling with all our might, dig our claws in, but it does no good. Just think, how does pie look if it's covered in claw marks?

Not-Wobbling

I won't say there's more now, but there seems to be as much polarization today as there probably has ever been. Part of the human condition is to think dualistically. We like to categorize, fit things in little boxes so that we think we know what they are, what they mean, who they belong to. At best that only works on the most surface of levels, and even then, it's still illusion. That's not only the “all perceptions are empty” level, although that's certainly true, it can go to wobbling between misguided action and inaction.

Some people hear a chant of “Black lives matter,” then contrarily jump to “All lives matter.” Of course all lives matter, none more than any other. Maybe “Any life matters” or “Every Life Matters” would be a more accurate slogan on the macro level. But on the micro level, “Black lives” matter serves as a reminder that “Black Lives” constitute part of “All Lives” and that seems to be overlooked. It doesn't mean that if Black lives matter, others don't, or that the others matter less. If an arsonist is burning down all the Cape Cod houses, that doesn't imply that split levels don't matter, or matter less. It's a fairly straightforward “somebody is setting fire to this type of house, maybe we should keep an eye on that, be a little more vigilant if we want to catch the arsonist.” It would be easier to find the arsonist torching the Cape Cods by watching the Cape Cods rather than the ranches. Split level and ranch houses aren't diminished by that;  they just aren't the ones being burnt down.

But lumping all “Black” lives together is just another way we try to pigeonhole people and polarize further. It's a symptom of American culture, where if one is white, preferably WASPY and male, then you're in the one non-hyphenated American. Everyone else becomes an African-American, or Irish-American, Asian-American, and so on. I'm a middle-aged white male. That doesn't mean that the so-called “American Dream” is a given, but it probably does mean that I didn't come to bat with two strikes against me to start with. I'd imagine that a Cuban refugee who doesn't speak English, has dark skin, and is a female besides, may be coming to the plate not only with two strikes, but also possibly without a bat. We make projections, we make assumptions, we make metaphors about baseball based on where we put the hyphen.

Saying that her life is identical to every other Black female Latina is every bit as inaccurate as saying my life is typical of all white males. And yet, somehow it's easier to construct a monolithic “other,” to call them welfare queens, and that if someone doesn't have citizenship or at least their papers in order, that somehow they simultaneously are here “to take MY job and collect welfare paid by MY taxes”. Even if we don't carry it out to that wide side of the pendulum swing, we can very easily come to some equally absurd generalizations of our own. ALL Republicans are ignorant, gun-toting, religious zealots...ALL Democrats are spineless tree-hungers...ALL Protestants are imbued with a work ethic...ALL Jews are money-grubbers...ALL Muslims are terrorists...ALL Buddhists are shaven-headed pacifist vegetarians with that peaceful, calm equanimity that raises us above the fray. I think it's safe to say that in that multiple choice quiz of stereotypes, the correct answer would be “none of the above”. Pigeonholing people into boxes based on hyphens arbitrarily separates what is inherently not separate. I’m not a Black Latina, and she’s not a white male, and neither is she all Black Latinas any more than I’m all white males. Each being different renders difference moot. Recognizing what differences there are can be skillful; her needs are not necessarily my needs, but there are some common, basic human needs we share. Hyphens work well when writing; they don’t work when it comes to people.

Sengcan says not to pick and choose, Seung Sahn says don't make bad and good. Does that mean stereotyping is not-good/not-bad? That genocide is not-good/not-bad? Is making any “good” or “bad” characterization not-good/not-bad? If your answer is yes, you're making emptiness. If you answer no, you're making “good and bad” and attaching to form. This is what the Heart Sutra refers to in “form is emptiness” and “emptiness is form”. The Zen approach is not to be dualistic, not to attach to either form or emptiness, accept but not settle. So more accurately, maybe we don’t make good and bad out of the fact that people think stereotyping and arson are OK, and just accept that people do think these things. But that doesn’t mean we have also just accept, and tacitly endorse, the acts of stereotyping and killing. To go back to the house metaphor, if the inaction of not paying attention to the Cape Cod house fires gives license to the arsonist to move on to ranch houses, then split levels, townhouses, and so on, they all burn until there's nothing left but the arsonists.

Under the supposed guise of no-preference, a choice is made regardless. Allowing injustice to one is allowing injustice to all. The nihilistic choice has effectively been made that no houses matter. Not recognizing how differences between houses are indeed no-differences results in literally no houses. Cape Cods are not split levels, but they are both houses, not-one and not-two.

The Wobblies (Industrial Workers of the World) summed this up with “an injury to one is an injury to all,” and I doubt that anyone in the “one big union” was particularly well-versed in the Heart Sutra, or if they were, that they based their Union’s platform on it. Yes, they put labor and management into different categories, but “all” includes both. An injury to one worker would have ramifications across the spectrum, including to management. That would not be in the interest of any. It’s a no-brainer, and what could be more Zen than a no-brainer? One thing that’s more Zen might be to take that idea and put it into action. Before any thought, act to save all beings. What’s more “True Nature” than acting out of lovingkindness and compassion with no discrimination?  

Zen puts us squarely into experiencing reality directly. Some houses are burning, that’s reality. If we do nothing, other burning houses may be the next reality. We can live righteously, we can be indignant, but equivocating and being righteously indignant and leaving it at the level of thought and theory and inaction, eventually all houses burn. We choose not to wobble; and act like a Wobbly.

The Buddha in the Beauty Parlor →

I took the Bodhisattva Precepts at the San Francisco Zen Center a number of years ago. It seemed like taking the Precepts was probably a big deal, so I may as well look somewhat presentable. It turns out that taking the Precepts is indeed a big deal, with much more ceremony than I had previously imagined. I'd figured that it being Zen, they'd just hand me a sheet of paper that said, “OK, you're a Bodhisattva now, fair play to ya,” and that would be it. That was not the case.

I had much longer hair than I do now. And when long, it would get pretty ratty. I was glad when the ceremony rolled along that I'd decided to go down to Market Street to get a haircut. While strolling along, a certain hair salon caught my eye. Right between a couple of the chairs was a Buddha, a fairly tall Buddha, probably five feet tall including the pedestal. I didn't know if that were an auspicious sign or not, but I thought it was pretty cool, so they cut my hair. Indeed I did come out looking relatively respectable.

A monk asked Chan Master , “What is Buddha?” Yúnmén's reply, “Dry shit on a stick.” A perfectly respectable answer, so long as you actually have a stick with dry shit on it with you. If you have three pound of flax, Buddha is three pounds of flax. If you don't have either of them with you, saying that either of them is Buddha would be just plain weird. But whatever is right here&now is Buddha. iPhone recording a talk? Buddha. Candles on the altar? Buddha. You siting there on the cushion, or reading this? Buddha. What's near you? Buddha. What's on that pedestal in the barbershop? Buddha.

In the non-dual Dharmadhatu, the realm of absolute reality, of all phenomena and noumena, Absolute and Relative are inseparable. There's no dividing line between form and emptiness. It's more like formemptiness. Not two sides to the same coin, as the coin of the Dharmadhatu has no sides, neither does it have an inside, nor an outside. It's not a Dharmadhatu + 1, with me looking in from the outside, the guest on the Great Cosmic Guest List. One could even call it the suchness party. We're all it in, whether we like it or not.

But in our world of differentiation, we have like and dislike, beauty and ugly, good and bad, and so on. Of course it's all created by thinking, ratty hair before, much more respectable after. The mountain doesn't wake up in the morning and say, “Man, I am one hot mountain.” Neither does it wake up in the morning and say, “Oh, I am so ugly. My trees are all scattered and bug-eaten, I'm not as tall as Everest. I'm awful.” We do. From the Chinese Text Project's translation of the Dao De Jing:

All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they all know the skill of the skilful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what the want of skill is. So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to (the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce the one (the idea of) the other; that length and shortness fashion out the one the figure of the other; that (the ideas of) height and lowness arise from the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and that being before and behind give the idea of one following another. Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and conveys his instructions without the use of speech. All things spring up, and there is not one which declines to show itself; they grow, and there is no claim made for their ownership; they go through their processes, and there is no expectation (of a reward for the results). The work is accomplished, and there is no resting in it (as an achievement).

The work is done, but how no one can see;'Tis this that makes the power not cease to be. Unless “ugly” exists, there is no “beauty.”

 If there is “good,” then that must only exist in reference to “bad.” Without creating these dividing lines, there is only the suchness of the Dharmadhatu. It is all encompassing, where there is no objectification or separation. If you think of yourself as an example, do “you” need anyone or anything else for you to think that there's a “you?” There's the relative “you” that isn't necessarily “me,” but neither one of us thinks we exist solely on the basis of the other person in the room. However, if there were no other beings thinking of their “you's,” would the thought of “me” even come up? Why would it need to? There's only the non-dual suchness of the Dharmadhatu.

From Richard B. Clark's translation of Sengcan's Xinxin Ming:

Emptiness here, Emptiness there,
but the infinite universe stands always before your eyes.
Infinitely large and infinitely small;
no difference, for definitions have vanished
and no boundaries are seen.
So too with Being
and non-Being.
Don't waste time in doubts and arguments
that have nothing to do with this.
One thing, all things:
move among and intermingle, without distinction.
To live in this realization
is to be without anxiety about non-perfection.
To live in this faith is the road to non-duality,
Because the non-dual is one with the trusting mind.
Words! The Way is beyond language,
for in it there is
no yesterday
no tomorrow
no today.

There's a Buddha in a beauty parlor. Where else would he be?

To listen to the Dharma talk, click on the title, or navigate here:

 https://soundcloud.com/onemindzen/the-buddha-in-the-beauty-parlor