It may be the case that some of us feel that we're in the trees, not to mention in the bushes or in the brambles, in the thickets. And where's the forest again? You may remember the forest. What's the forest? Do you remember the forest? What's the forest? Do you remember the forest? No. Part of the forest, right. What's another part of the forest? What? Compassion. And another aspect of the forest? Realization. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Alex, for catching an aspect of the whole forest there. So that's the forest, right? I just wanted to remind myself and you of the forest.

[01:07]

At least, to use the expression, I'm not going to say my forest. I'm not going to say it. I'm not going to say my forest. Okay? I'm not going to say it. But this is the bodhisattva forest. Right? Bodhisattva forest is compassion, bodhicitta, diaspora. You know what bodhicitta is, Elka? You do? Good. You got it there, over there? Got bodhicitta over there? What? You tried to have it? Thank you. And the bodhisattva forest is compassion, bodhicitta, which Elka tries to have. and realization. How about that? Realization over there? Still not, but thinking about it a little bit. This is the forest, right?

[02:11]

Okay? The Bodhisattva forest, the Mahayana forest. Sound familiar, Jerome? Sound familiar? Now, I bring that up, I don't know, It comes up through me, right? And I thought, how come it's coming up? Oh, I know. It's because of this role, this bodhisattva preceptor role that somehow seems to have arisen in the world. Somehow this person, this non-inherently existing person, has gotten into this position of being a bodhisattva preceptor. Forget about bodhisattvas. I got in the role of being a bodhisattva preceptor. So, like, I play the role in the transmission of the bodhisattva precepts. So, what's the forest?

[03:22]

And so on, right? Now, One of the characteristics of a bodhisattva preceptor, one of the characteristics which is good for a bodhisattva preceptor is to be patient with the students, the students of the precepts, to be patient with them, to be patient with them whatever their rate of learning is. So I want you to know that there is this effort to be patient with whatever you're working on. If you're working on compassion, that's what you're working on. You're working on just trying to be kind to yourself and to your fellow practitioners and to even your fellow non-practitioners. If you're trying to be kind to all beings, fine. If you're working on bodhicitta, if you're working on realization, fine.

[04:25]

That's what I say, that's what I work on, fine. Now, when it comes to working on realization, that's sort of what I'm trying to work on this practice period. Although I continually try to remember myself and for you because practicing compassion and bodhicitta are ongoing. But I'm working with you now on realization. Realization of selflessness, emptiness. Realization of non-inherent existence of phenomena. It's not just non-inherent existence, period. It's the non-inherent existence of phenomena. Phenomena like colors, smells, feelings, concepts, formations, and consciousness.

[05:30]

These are the phenomena, the emptiness of which I'm working to realize. But some of you are not really up to working on realization right now, maybe. Not in the mood, too busy, whatever. Maybe you'd rather work on compassion or bodhicitta. Fine. Some of you want compassion and bodhicitta or realization. You just want to pout. Fine. Some of you want to fight with somebody. Fine. Some of you have recently decided that you're not going to fight anymore. It's like, hey, I'm not going to fight anymore. This is like today we're starting this new non-fighting campaign. Wherever you are, it's fine. But I'm emphasizing the realization of the non-inherent existence of all phenomena. That's what I'm emphasizing. Please forgive me if it's irritating for you for me to be working on this with you, even if you don't want to.

[06:39]

I'm just offering it to you, and if you want to pick up on it, Great. If you don't want to, just put it aside with the stream and the rain. And let me do this non-inherently. I must. I must. I have no choice. I have to complete the picture before I die. In short, what I'm proposing is that in order to realize the emptiness, the non-existence of all phenomena, it seems to me to be necessary that we become aware of

[07:49]

Any belief in any belief in inherent existence And that's the hard part that I'm finding is the hard part, is to become clearly aware, to have a clear sense, clear experience, a clear image, a clear view of the view of inherent existence. This is the hard part. So again, some of us are just trying to settle down, and when you're settling down, it might be time to try to see this, to try to get a clear image of the belief in inherent existence of, for example, the person.

[09:09]

So I'm starting with trying to get with individual people and myself to develop a clear ongoing a steady intimacy with the belief in the inherent existence of the person, of the personality, of the I. And then from there we can move into trying to develop an intimacy, a steady awareness of the conception of the inherent existence of all phenomena. not just the person. Start with the gross one, person. And this is, if you're not yet fairly calm, it may not be time to become aware of this. After sitting for five days, doing doksan now, I find people are fairly settled and they can cope with at least the topic being raised. I've been asking these people, do you see...

[10:15]

Do you see the self? Do you see a self, a person, of I? And some people don't see it. They can't quite see it. It's not appearing clearly. Some people are seeing it. And then I'm asking these people about what they see. So there seems to be for me at least to talk about this without people screaming at me or running out of the room. So I will continue to inquire with you about this Realizational topic. But if you're not working on this, it's okay. So I actually start by asking you what the practice is, and if you tell me that the practice is this Realizational style, then I will inquire into Is the view that we have on the table here, is the view that's arising a view of inherent existence?

[11:19]

Can you find this view of inherent existence? Or perhaps the other side, do you find the view that things inherently don't exist? Is that the view that you have? And then we can talk about that. As I said before, The inherent existence of no phenomena, no phenomena has inherent existence. You cannot find the inherent existence of any phenomena. But you can find the belief, the image, the concept. You can find that concept of inherent existence. That appears. that people can experience that and see that and look at that and examine that, analyze that, draw pictures of it, speak of it.

[12:29]

This is possible. And this is what I'd like to do. But I'm also happy to talk about practicing compassion and bodhicitta, and I'm also happy to talk about practicing calm practices, how to practice. But it's possible to be not involved while we're having a conversation about images of inherent existence. Does that make sense? Now, one of the One scripture we've been chanting is the first teaching of the Buddha where he's basically saying, please, if you want to follow the path in a worthy way, please settle down with your experience.

[13:36]

Don't distract yourself from your experience by being devoted to indulgence and sense pleasure. Don't distract yourself from your experience by being devoted to self-mortification. Don't distract yourself from what's happening by those kinds of practices, self-mortification and addiction to sense pleasure. In other words, see what you're feeling, see what you're seeing, hear what you're hearing, think what you're thinking. Just be settled in your experience. Don't run away. Don't be distracted. Settle. Then if you're settled, I can teach you the Four Noble Truths and so on, he said. And in that first scripture, there was some realization by Venerable Kundana. And then he went over the scripture, the teachings there with the other five, and they all had some realization.

[14:36]

But then he moved on to another kind of teaching, full realization. The other kind of teaching is him teaching them emptiness. the, well, at least emptiness of the person he taught them. And then in the Kacchiyanagota Sutta, he teaches basically right here in this early Buddhist text, you have the teaching of emptiness. So there it is, he says, the world, this world, kathayana, is generally inclined towards two views, existence and non-existence. This world, this world of suffering, this conventional world,

[15:37]

Designation, you know, rain, people, zendos, monasteries, cattle, dogs, cats. That world of suffering, of birth and death, is generally inclined towards two views. Our existence is one view, and existence means the view that things inherently exist. And the other view is there really isn't anything at all. Things don't exist at all. That's another view. Or another way to put it is things inherently exist, and once they cease to exist, even these inherently existing things, once they cease, they are totally obliterated. So the view that things inherently exist is the view of eternalism or permanence.

[16:48]

They exist and they exist forever because they have their inherent existence. The other is that things actually do not exist at all and even things that appear and then disappear Since they were inherently existing, now that they disappeared, they're inherently not existing. They're completely gone. These are the two views, two extreme views. And generally speaking, people are inclined toward one of these views, or both, or trade-off. So inclined, that means not upright. So these views are out there. possible and the world is generally leaning towards one of the other. In other words, grasping one of the other, rejecting one of the other.

[17:49]

And the middle way is to be upright in response to or with regard to these views. To be upright like a wall. To not get involved with these views. That's then you enter the middle way. Does that make sense? But the world is generally with regard to these views and I may be one of those beings that's not upright with regard to these views. I may be actually leaning towards some belief in the inherent existence of something. I may be leaning towards the view of existence existence of, for example, me or I. It's possible. The world is generally inclined that way, so maybe that general inclination has pervaded over here.

[18:57]

It's possible. Even if one consciously practices being upright and consciously not involved with such a view, one may still be unconsciously involved with such a view. In other words, you may feel like, I'm not going to get involved. I can see that sense of inherent existence, but I'm not going to get involved with it. I'm not going to lean towards it. But all the while, there may be an unconscious belief. So again, many Buddhists, you say, does anything inherently exist? And they say, no. But then you try to adjust.

[20:00]

Suddenly, leave me, who is separate from you, alone. actually leave my inherently existing self which is either the same or different from this body alone. But which is it? Is it the same as the body or different from the body? That's what I'd like to find out what you think. To give up to really relinquish fully not just consciously but deeply in your body to give up the belief in inherent existence, or the belief in the annihilation of things, in the belief that there's nothing at all. To give up these views is the realization of emptiness.

[21:06]

It is the realization of the bodhisattva way. And I just want to mention, which I've mentioned many times before, is that in Zen Mind and Beginner's Mind, in the chapter on emptiness, Suzuki Roshi says, if you want to understand Buddhism, forget all about ideas, preconceived notions. either give up, forget all about it, or forget about all of them. And then he says that usually the view of life is rooted in the idea of existence. So he just mentions the preconception of existence.

[22:07]

He doesn't mention non-existence. Nagarjuna and Buddha mentioned that usually the view of life is firmly rooted in existence and non-existence. But anyway, although Sukeroshi didn't mention that our view of life is rooted in the belief in existence and non-existence, anyway, he says, whatever beliefs you have, forget about them if you want to understand Buddhism. And so the Buddha says that, Nagarjuna says that too. You can't understand the Buddha's wonderful teaching if you don't relinquish these views of existence and non-existence. So if you're consciously willing to relinquish them and consciously are relinquishing them, good.

[23:09]

And in that state of renunciation of these extreme views, in that letting go of all these views of inherent existence and annihilation of inherent existence, which is another version of inherent existence belief, then you're doing your work. And the world will offer you more information as time goes on. Your friends and neighbors may come up to you and say, you know, I think you do have some belief in inherent existence. You act like you do. And you might say, oh, really? Thank you for that feedback. See? I don't.

[24:14]

Wasn't that the right response? Isn't that the way I would have responded? Wasn't like you said I was? And so on. Your friend may say, that was good, but still, it stinks. I understand completely how you feel. Would you like a cup of tea? And then you might say, your friend might say, that was good, that was good, that was real good. That is close to what it would be like if you didn't have any belief. You're doing great. But tell me, how would you get it that way? And then you might say, take your friend gently by the collar and pull them close to you and say,

[25:17]

the fire god is to look for fire. And then your friend may say, oh, you have realized, you have realized the lack of inherent existence. You are my teacher. And then you might think, yes, I am. You see, your friends will help you. And when you say, yes, I am, they're a warm glow about you. And then your friend may say, do you smell something? And then you might say, yeah, I think I do.

[26:24]

And your friend might say, now, is that the same or different from yourself? So Nagarjuna says, in the admonitions to kathayana, two theories exist, in other words, implying phenomena inherently exist and does not exist, implying phenomena do not exist at all, have been refuted by the blessed and adept at existence as well as non-existence. In every case where the self's not the same or different from the body and mind, it has no inherent existence.

[27:38]

It can only exist, it can only exist either by being the same as the body and mind, then it could exist because you've got the body and mind and it's the same, so you've got the self. So it could inherently exist. In other words, every time you have a body, The self is the same as that. So, you've always got one, it inherently exists. Or, every time you got a body and mind, it inherently is different. So you've always got the self then too. But, if it doesn't inherently, if it's not inherently the same as the body-mind, and it's not inherently different from the body-mind, That would be impossible. You couldn't have a self that wasn't one of the two. Something that I think you must be convinced of in order to become free of the idea of the self that inherently exists, which we innately have and don't look at.

[28:57]

I'm not talking... look at the sense of self, which we think inherently exists, and notice that that must, if it inherently exists, it must be either the same or different, inherently the same or different from body and mind. And if you can see that it's not, then you can see the emptiness that pervades every instance where it's not the same as body and mind or different from body and mind. Yes? Well, what I'm saying, she said, isn't there a problem to think that there's something besides the five aggregates? And the answer is, yes. There's also a problem of thinking that there's something that's the same as the five aggregates.

[29:59]

But first of all, what I'm saying is you must be convinced, okay, that in order to be inherently existing, it must be either the same or different. Once you're convinced, then we can see the problem in what it must be. But if you don't think, then you're not back into that corner yet. So then when we show you the problem, you can say, I can see that's a problem, but that's not my problem because I don't need to be in that situation of being different from the five aggregates. But if you think that you inherently exist, you must be different or the same as. You have no choice. And you said, but isn't there a problem of being different? Yes, there is. Yes? Yes? What mixture? Yes, here's five aggregates.

[31:03]

Excuse me, but... But you said you could see the emptiness of some of the aggregates? Okay. I just want to point out, we're not working on that right now, the emptiness of the aggregates. Okay? That's the next step. That's the emptiness of all phenomena. Now we're working on the emptiness of the person, of the self. Okay, so that little thing you did there was good, it's good work, but it's not really applying here. What we're talking about now is that the five aggregates are experienced. You can have experience of body and mind, but you can also have an experience of some idea of a self.

[32:06]

I should say also, but among your five aggregates experience, you can have this type of experience called experience of a self. It's actually connected to the five aggregates. Okay? But, you said if it's separate, there's going to be a problem. Right? If it's different, there will be a problem. Yes, there will. And if it's the same, there will be a problem too. which you didn't mention, but there will be a problem if the sense of self, if the inherently existing self as the aggregates, there will be a problem. If it's different, there will be a problem. Now, if the non-inherently existing, non-inherently existing self, if that's the same as the five aggregates, that's not a problem. If a self that doesn't exist of itself is the same as the aggregates, that's not a problem because you never said It couldn't just be a combination of the five aggregates.

[33:08]

In other words, it's not something inherently existing of itself. It's just the five aggregates. Therefore, you don't have to even mention it. It's just a figment of the five aggregates. This isn't an inherently existing self. This is a dependently co-arisen self. That can be the same as the five aggregates. But the inherently existing self cannot be the same as the five aggregates. It doesn't make any sense. We're getting into the reason why it can't now. One of the reasons is that it would be nothing other than the five aggregates. It would be meaningless. You should just call it the five aggregates rather than have two names for the five aggregates. One is five aggregates. The other is inherently existing self. First, you need to be convinced... that if it's inherently existing, it must be either the same or different from your body-mind experience.

[34:10]

And if you have some argument with that, you should raise it to be convinced that it must be one of the two, must be the same or different. And she's raising the problems that you'd have if it were different. If once you see that it must be one of the other, then we'll have problems. But if you see that it must be one of the other, then you won't have problems because you won't see that it must be that way. First of all, you must be convinced that it must be one of the other. Okay? Then we'll have problems. So... Oh, good, good. Okay, so I don't know, let's see. There's Joel, and there's Theo, and there's Linda, and there's John.

[35:12]

Anybody else? Okay. Joel? My name is Noah, but what is so... I think it's an idea. Joel? Aren't we already convinced? I mean, I don't feel like I need to be convinced that I feel like I'm independent of sort of five ideas. It seems like my self is so pervasive that that's why I feel like I'm here. So you're convinced already that You're not, well, you're not, you actually sense already that you have this idea, a self that's independent of the five aggregates. You have that sense? Yes. Okay, good. So we can work on you, on that one. Okay? But not everybody seems to be convinced.

[36:12]

So you're in a different, I don't know what, experiential state than some. We can work, we can, if you got that, we can work on that. We can analyze, we can examine that situation that you say you feel you're in. Well, I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. To think that I exist independent from the five aggregates means I feel like I have an inherently existing self that isn't part of the co-dependent horizon. Right, exactly. An inherently existing self would be a non-dependent self. It would be a self that doesn't depend on the five aggregates. Okay? So, I can work with that. That's like a sitting duck. Theo? I don't understand exactly what you mean when you say inherently existing self. Well, he just said it. Inherently existing self would be a self that doesn't depend on anything. Just a self that doesn't depend on the five aggregates.

[37:16]

So you could have a self, but you wouldn't have to, like, you wouldn't have to have a feeling. to a concept, to a mental formation, to a consciousness, to a color, a smell, a sound, a touch, a taste. Without referring to any of that material, you could tell me about this self. That would be an inherently existing self. Yeah, let's hear about it. You could say it would be eternal, and if it changed, then it would be annihilated. That's this thing here. But you say, is it something that's eternal? But I would say, since it's independent of the five aggregates, please tell me about this something. Before we get into it, what is this something you're talking about? You see, that's a sitting duck that we were referring to a moment ago. Yes, you're, I'm a what? That's right. And without referring to the five aggregates, which you can't refer to them, you're not going to be able to come up with anything.

[38:23]

But that's not what's happening over there. Five aggregates are happening. But that's the point, is that inherently existing self that's separate from the five aggregates, we're going to have a problem with. A non-dependent I, I, or self, this will be hard to come up with, easy to refute. But the power of the refutation won't work unless you feel like, hey, this is where I live. I must be different from the five aggregates, or I must be the same. And you either got to be, you can't be something else other than the same or different from them, and then you got to be both or one of them. And whichever one you choose, you're on the spot. Release from that idea. You're on the spot for release from the linchpin of misery.

[39:27]

But you've got to get on the spot. You've got to get on the spot to be released on the spot. Yes, John or Linda and Carol? You don't You don't have... You had your hand? It wasn't your hand? Was that his hand? John or Linda? Yeah, right. John or Linda. What's the problem? It's one or the other. Which one is it? You can't have... There's no third alternative, is there? I guess it's... I'm looking for more practical... ...on the spot. So you have a sense of self. Do you have a sense of self? Yes. What is it? I think that... that there's something in me that is attached to... You think there's something in me? There's something in me. What's... I'm not sure. Okay. Well, you're not sure, but... But what?

[40:29]

I mean, there's some... What's this me? It's... I can't... I can't tangibly grasp the me? Well, is it somewhat evident? Are you talking about something there's no evidence for? Well, let's just have some evidence. You get to say what... Anger. The evidence for the I is anger? I'm starting to kind of feel that this anger is not as much a part of what I used to feel it was. That's fine, but are you going to use this anger for evidence or not? You could switch over and say, okay, I have non-anger as evidence.

[41:36]

I have friendliness as evidence for myself. So we have, is anger evidence or is the fact of the reaction to the anger? That there's some kind of stimulus and how I react to it. So the reaction to some stimulus is evidence for a self. That's what you're saying. Okay. So there it is. Now, is that reactivity, is that the self? Is the self the same as that reactivity? It's the same? So that's an example of... The sense is that the self is the same as the aggregates. Because the reactivity is an aggregate.

[42:40]

It's a mental formation aggregate. So in this case, it seems like the self is the same as... the mind, the activity. Now, just a second. Is this self that's the same as that, is this an inherently existing self? Do you have a sense that it's an inherently existing self? That was a step before this. Actually, two steps before this. See, he's getting into, this is good, but anyway, he's getting into an example of, he wants a practical example of how He's got the example now of a sense that the self is the same as the aggregate. He has his sense. He's saying that he feels this way, okay? This is his sense. This is a possibility. It must either be this or it must be different. There's no other possibility if it inherently exists. Okay? But there's two steps previously. Number one, do you understand?

[43:42]

that it must either be the same as the aggregates, the same as that reactivity, or it must be separate or different from that reactivity. Do you understand that? Are you convinced of that? Yes, you need to be convinced of that for the impact of your self. You see, he has this sense, there is this sense that the self is the same as the reactivity. But that sense will have more impact if you understand that it must be the case that if I have an inherently existing self, it must be either the way you say or it must be that the self is different from that reactivity. There's no other alternative. You must have that sense. But the step before that, the first step, which I don't know if you've got to yet, is do you have a sense that this self that you're talking about, that's the same as the aggregates, Like Joel's got it, see? He says he's got it. That there is a non-dependent self. And he's got this non-dependent self with him all the time.

[44:47]

It drove him all the way to Tassajara. And it's got him backed right into his seat over there in this Joel hood. He wants to get... It's okay. He doesn't mind being Joel, you know. He doesn't mind. Noah's his name, he thinks. But... Because he's not attached to Noah. He's not even attached to Joel, right? Right? No, so no problem. But he is attached to inherent existence. That's why he's here, right? That's the problem. Now, do you have that same problem, John? You've got that problem of this sense of a non-dependent John and a non-dependent Noah. You don't have that, but he has that. You have this non-dependent, this independently existing Noah and John. Now, do you understand that if it is independently existing, if it's not dependent, if it's not dependent, if it's inherently existing, then it must be either the same as your psychophysical experience or it must be different.

[45:54]

Do you understand that? And you don't yet. You're getting it, though. Practically, that's the key. Because, you see, you've got the two other ingredients. You see, he's got the two ingredients. He senses that he has this idea, this concept of an inherent. non-dependent John. He's got that. That's good. And you've got this sense of that this John is this reactivity. In other words, you've got this sense that the John is the same as the five aggregates, or at least, you know, the fourth aggregate, but the fourth aggregate always... other three of the other four so actually it's all five are happening there but particularly you're looking at the reactivity as the same as the thing now what you have to do is you have to realize that you it must be that way that the way you feel it must be that way it has to be that the self is different from that reactivity that you've got this in this non-dependent john who is not that reactivity which you're observing

[47:10]

You've got this reactivity to anger, and John's somebody else. You're not going to go for that. But it's either got to be you've got to go for this one, you've got to be this John, or you have to be another one. But you're choosing to be this one, so you're stuck on that one, and you know that you either must be this one or the other one, but there's not another possibility. Do you see that? Put those three together. the impact of your sense of what you are and your identifying with the skandhas will start to take effect. It's just like sit with that now, yeah. See if you can put those three together. And the sense that the inherently existing self is the same as the aggregates has problems. But I'm not going to mention it. I already did mention the problems a little bit, but I'm not going to mention it again right now.

[48:17]

Maybe you can see the problem in it. I'll mention it. There's several problems. of an inherently existing something, of something that's not dependent on anything other than itself being the same as something else. There's a problem in that. Or there's an opportunity to become free from that idea. ...position. Okay? Linda? Well, I just wanted to say, it seemed to me that it would have to be, this independent felt would have to be relative to the agonist, or, like, where would it come from? So there you have it, folks. It seems to her that an independent thing is something. That's what you just said, right? It doesn't make sense that way. No. Something that doesn't depend on something is relative to something. Right? There it is. But... If you've got working for you, you're going to have a problem there.

[49:23]

This is going to have impact that you realize that this does not depend on something and it's relative to that thing it's not dependent on. In other words, it's not dependent on what it's dependent on. Wouldn't that be a problem? It would be a problem. Part of the way you would become free of this belief So you're surfacing, without me telling you, you're surfacing the inconsistencies in this way of seeing ourself. And we need to become familiar with our beliefs, plus so familiar with... the implications of our belief and then so familiar with the consequences of our beliefs and those implications that we become so nauseated that we drop, that we just can't stand deluded. Jeff?

[50:25]

Is your name still Jeff? Okay. Go ahead, Joel. Yes. [...] Number one. Number one. Okay. Do you feel... familiar in a steady way with this belief in inherent existence.

[51:35]

Doesn't sound like you do. So, you have to keep working with the five aggregates, working with your body-mind experience in this non-conceptual way, you know, not not elaborating not you know just non-conceptually settling with the non-conceptual nature of your mind not grasping your experience settling settling settling until it's time for your body and mind to up this sense of an independent self and if you keep working on that and you can't find it uh If it doesn't come pretty soon, we can, what do you call it? We can, what do you call that thing? Induce labor. We can give you some Pitocin.

[52:42]

We can stimulate the process, but I don't feel like, you know, it's at that dangerous level yet. I think you just keep working and see if it just comes. I think it's best if it just surfaces on its own. But if you can't do it, we can stimulate you to bring it out. wants this sense of, this belief, like good old Joel over there, right? It's nice to be able to call him Joel. Forever, right? He's completely, he's in so much trouble, it doesn't matter what I call him. So he's got this sense, you know. Soon I'm going to send him over to show you what it is. So he's got this sense, how come you don't? What's the matter with you? Why can't you find it? Are you some kind of a Buddha or something? Maybe. But even Buddhists can find such a thing. Even Buddhists can find this concept. It's just that they realize it's just a concept.

[53:48]

How come you can't find it? Is it like something that wants to stay hidden? So let's find it. And if it doesn't come, we'll tell you We'll poke at it. We'll make it come out. I'll start calling you Joel more and more often. Until finally, I'm not Joel. I'm a... I'm... a non-dependent... What would be non-dependent? A non-dependent Jeff. I don't even depend on Jeff to say that, by the way. So let's try to find that without... doing too much, okay? Then if you can find it, then let's try to be steady with it. Then we apply the logic. But the logic needs to be applied to this... There really isn't such a thing, but there is a concept of it. And that's what we need to forget. And we need to forget it down to our cells, because it's in our cells. It's in our genes, this thing.

[54:54]

Okay? Since you're leaving soon? Ah, gotcha. Gotcha. Vicky? I wanted to go a step back. I didn't get the necessity of the logic that I have to be convinced of. It's either... You didn't... Yes. Yeah, so it's okay, just take away the why. Drop the why. Anyway, you don't quite see that you have to be convinced that there's no alternative. Okay? If there's a third thing, you could say there's only three.

[56:01]

But there'd have to be then only three. In other words, it has to be a situation where once you agree that these are the only possibilities, okay, it's got to be this or this or this, this, and this, then if those are the only possibilities for you and you're really convinced, then take those possibilities away from you. But if you don't feel like there's really only two, then I take away those two and you say, fine, took them away, but I got 15 other possibilities you didn't give me. So this sense of the inherently existing self can still be held. You have to paint it into a corner. You have to get it in a spot where you say, okay, now it's kind of scientific. You say, this is like, what do you call it in science? When you put a theory out there, this is a theory. This is called the theory of it exists. It's the theory of inherently. This is one of the views.

[57:02]

These views are theories. It says the world is generally inclined towards two views, but you could also say towards two theories. The theory is things inherently exist or they don't exist at all. Those are the two theories. If your theory is that it inherently exists, if you find it, Now you have to tell me, what will be your criteria for refutability? When you make a theory in science, you say, this is my criterion for refutation. If you can show this, I will re-agree my theory doesn't work. Okay? So you have to say, two criteria for refutability, or one, or six. But there's really not a necessity to say three, but if you want to say a third one, Let's hear about it. But you have to say then there's three and stop there. So that, or you could just say there's one. Some theories just have one. You can show this, I will drop my theory, turn my clothes inside out and become your disciple.

[58:06]

You have to say that. But you can also have two. In this case, two would be fine. Because two actually is better. Because the mind does know that there's two. But there's just two for now. Just like there's only five skandhas. If you can make a sixth skandha, fine. Let's hear about it. But every time anybody comes up with a sixth, I say, well, that's the fourth. Or that's the second. And they say, oh, I see. So if you can come up with a third, fine, tell me about it, but I bet you that I'll find out that it's... But the main thing is you have to say, you have to understand, if it weren't one of these two, or put it this way, a consequence of inherent existence of a self would be that it would be one of these two. So maybe you need to work forward to see that a natural consequence... Inherently existing is that it must either be the same as the body or different. And that you can't think of another possibility for it.

[59:13]

So, do you want to try that? Well, I thought it's a mixture of the two. I think that's just theoretical. Both existing and not exist... Both being the same and not being the same? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're saying? Okay. So... There it is. How could something be the same as a form and different from a form? Tell me about it. It's blue, you know. The self is the same as blue. How can it be the same as blue and different from blue? Tell me about that. Huh? You know, red is different from blue. Feelings are different from blue. But if something is the same as blue, then that's it. But it could also be different. So, the sense of self, again, ladies and gentlemen, a dependent sense of self, a dependent self, can be the same as blue.

[60:25]

A dependent self can be the same as a feeling. A dependent self can be different from blue and can be the same as blue. Can be different from a feeling and the same as a feeling. A dependent one can, because it arises in dependence on the five aggregates. But if it inherently exists, then it must be the same or it must be different. But a non-inherently existing one doesn't have to be the same or different. It doesn't have to be the same or different. It can be dependent. And if it's dependent, it doesn't have to be the same or different. But if it's independent, it must be the same or different. Do you understand? Do you get that? If it's independent, it must be the same because if it's independent, it must just be that.

[61:32]

Or it must be different and be completely different. But a dependent thing doesn't have to be the same as something or completely different. It's only if it exists independently that it has to be the same as it or different than it. But if there aren't two things, if it isn't duality, if it's interdependence, then you don't have to have this. So an interdependent, non-dual self doesn't have to follow these rules. It's all just a mess. That's the self you actually have, by the way. You can find that one. But that's not the one you think you have. That's just the one you think you're supposed to have, because you're a good Buddhist. But deep down, you think there's this other one, and that's the one that's tying you to misery. Yesterday the talk went for two hours. And this one's heading there. So I don't want this to be too long. How are you doing? Is it getting to be too long? Are you okay? Really? Fantastic. Wow.

[62:35]

The east shall rise again. Cedar? This is related. What you said just now. So I have this problem with the logic, which is that either the same or different makes sense in the logical systems of science and so forth. That it's, you know... They? Are they different from this inherently existing self? Or the same? Same. Where did you hear that? Who said that? That's the first time I heard that one. Did you hear that? That was a new Dharma there. No, no. What you're confusing that with is things neither exist nor both exist nor neither exist nor not exist.

[63:44]

That's the one that I've heard. I've heard that one. It's not that things are true or not true or neither true nor both true and not true. I never heard that one. I've heard that things are true. People say that, but that's not Buddhism. It's that things neither exist nor do not exist. That's this one here. That's this sutra. This sutra is saying you should renounce the view that things exist and also both that they exist and don't exist and also that they neither exist nor not exist. To say that things exist, okay, that means to say that things exist inherently, that's called slandering the truth by exaggeration. Don't exist at all is slandering the truth by underestimation. To say that they both inherently exist and don't exist at all is slandering the truth by contradiction.

[64:54]

And to say that they both exist and don't exist, I mean, excuse me, they both exist inherently and don't exist at all is slandering by contradiction. And to say that they neither exist inherently nor do not exist at all is slandering by pure mental fabrication. May I repeat what you said? She feels like Zazen is a direct refutation of the belief in inherent existence? We all agree with that, don't we, folks?

[66:12]

You're not sure if you agree with that or not, Brian? We agree. Great. Fantastic. Disciples here for you, Ricky. You don't want them? Well, Zazen refutes your wants and your... You want Joel, you got Joel. Joel Roshi. Is there anything else you want? This is your chance, Asper. You shall get it. Can I say that? Can you do what? Say that? Yeah, fine. This is Buddha land, after all. Because the whole thing arises from ignorance. The whole mass of ill arises dependent on ignorance. The whole mass of what? The whole mass of ill arises dependent on ignorance.

[67:18]

But also the sense of self arises dependent on ignorance because of its... I don't know. All arisings depend on ignorance. That's right. And all ceasings depend on arisings. That's right. My experience of the sense of self is that it... I experience my sense of self through motivations and through... You experience your sense of self in motivations. Yes. And through ways of seeing things or experiencing them, which then change, you know, two seconds later. Yes. That's fine. So, the sense of self is constantly changing. Right. I guess my question is, do we have to work through the logical representation?

[68:19]

Is that a necessary part of waking up to... The sense of self is a necessary part of skill. What you just said, what I just heard you say, I could hear as a logical... So you just asked me, you just gave me some information, and when I heard that information, I heard the logical refutation of the belief in an inherently existing self by what you just said. I did. You said that your sense of a self... First of all, you said the sense of self... with, I forgot what your example was, what? Motivations. So first of all, you pointed to, she pointed to a non-inherently existing self, a self that was associated with or dependent on some motivations. That's not the inherently existing self.

[69:19]

Then you further, then you, however, that association would be part of the refutation of an inherently existing self. what you just said there. You brought that up. I don't know your reason for bringing it up, but if I was going to refute an inherently existing self, I might bring up the information that I saw myself arise in dependence on motivation. In other words, I saw this self arise in dependence on something and it wasn't supposed to be in dependence on something. That's a logical refutation of a non-dependent self. Isn't that just an experience that you don't share? the refutation of the belief in inherent existence is not an experience which everybody shares. But I wish they would. That's what it's all about. It's about getting people to share the refutation of the belief in inherent existence.

[70:22]

I understand that not everybody connects the concept of the view of self Not everybody sees the illogic of an inherent new position. But I guess my question is about if we have the direct experience of a dependent self. That's right. Exactly. There is a possibility of direct experience of a dependently arising self. Right? That's a possibility for us. Right? Okay? I agree completely. Okay? Now... Pardon? Did you say so? So, I'm confused about whether it's necessary to... Work with the logic.

[71:25]

So she's confused. Since we have the possibility of directly experiencing the dependent co-arising of self, she's wondering, is it necessary for logical refutation of an inherently existing self? Is it necessary for us to do the logical argument? Or is that just a presentation of one or several different ways that we could explain the self? Is that just... So the question is, this is an important question. And I don't want to like be too... I don't want to get... But anyway, I'll be... I will respond logically to this question about whether it's necessary to be logical. May I? Okay. Now, I could just say, the fire god is here to look for fire. You know? And you could think that when I say... Logical refutation, you know, of the inherently existing self. But I think if you look more carefully, you'll find it is, and I'll prove it later.

[72:27]

For now, I would say that if somebody is alive in a human body, and they are experiencing the dependently co-arisen self, they are... The dependently co-arisen self is all we need. for starters anyway, for freedom from the belief in a non-dependently existing self. Notice I didn't say a non-dependently arisen self because the individual can arise. It's just there. It exists inherently, eternally. If you're seeing the self-dependently co-arise, that vision refutes this belief. this belief, when unexamined, which is the basis for misery. Does that make sense so far? So, the question is, is it necessary, if you are already seeing the dependently co-existent Self, is it necessary to go through some other kind of logical refutation of the belief in an inherently existing Self?

[73:39]

Reputation is right there already. That's it. That is the logical refutation. Dependent core arising is the vision of dependent core arising is the vision which refutes non-dependent existence. Okay? So it wouldn't be necessary because it would be in fact what's going on. That is... Dependent co-arising, the doctrine, the teaching, the Dharma, the Dharma is dependent co-arising. When you see that Dharma, that Dharma refutes this non-Dharma. The non-Dharma is the self does not dependently arise. The self is not a dependent co-arising. It's an inherent existence. That's suffering. the consciousness which is involved in that view.

[74:44]

So you've also found this innate consciousness which imagines this thing without actually questioning it. So you've found quite a bit already. Don't try to figure out at this point where the consciousness and the view come from. Just look at the view. When you get the view clear, then we can bring the view And see, is it coming from the body and mind or not? But before you try to figure out what it's associated with, what its origins are, what its provenance is, okay? Before you do that, try to be steady. Does that make sense? So that's what I wanted to say. But do you have some other question? If I go into like... I don't know, I feel like I'm going into, typically, like, freezing out while I'm alive. Yeah. And then, then, like, a situation will happen, and, like, you know, that you will flash up so strongly that it feels like it's, um, in a way that feels like it's not the, like, I don't know.

[76:03]

Mm-hmm, yeah. My question is, do you relate to that? Again, it is possible. One of the ways to work with this view, once you identify it, is to bring the meditation on the self into juxtaposition with it. Or to say, okay, now I found this thing which seems to be inherently existing. I've identified this... this view of a self-sufficient, self-established person, now I will meditate on how I'm re-arisen and how that refutes this. You could go right away to that. But if you don't have sufficient stabilization, but also, more importantly, if you're not convinced that of what it would take for this meditation on dependent co-arising to refute this view, then you'd be plying that meditation on dependent co-arising too soon.

[77:11]

So, like I said yesterday, if you're going to take this experiment of meditating on the dependent co-arising of this thing and do that of an independently existing self, if you're going to do that with this, then you also need to say what it's going to take What are you going to have to see over here to refute this over here? And if you set up that criterion of what you're going to have to see over here to give this up, then you're ready to do this. But I would suggest to you for now, actually, although... I mean, the central meditation of Buddhism is that dependent co-arising, but it's the experience of a lot of yogis. Unless your teacher recommends that meditation to you for this particular topic, it's probably better to use this other one than I told you. It's easier. Although dependent co-arising, that meditation can be used on any phenomena,

[78:15]

This one that I'm talking about, trying to see how it relates to the, whether it's the same, inherently the same, or inherently different from the body and mind, this is easier. So I would actually suggest that unless somebody suggests to you, and maybe even tells you the reason why they think it would be good for you to do meditation on dependable arising to counteract this view of self, it's probably better to do this other thing that I've been talking about. Partly because the criterion for refutability is so clear. It's hard to get it. I can see when I talk about it, your faces get all twisted. But there's a very that if you establish that, then when you don't satisfy it, you have a strong and a very clear sense that you haven't been able to find what you said you were going to have to find, namely, an inherently sameness, an inherent sameness with the body and mind.

[79:19]

So it's quite simple, this one. Whereas dependent core rising, what will be your criterion for refutability? It's kind of hard to find. A little more subtle. But some people, that is recommended for some people. Okay? So I guess I would suggest you don't do that one, even though theoretically it would work. Pardon? Well, you know, you don't understand it, but that's because you haven't worked at it a lot. I mean, this isn't easy. But the thing is, it isn't easy, but it's easier. The logic of how your meditation on dependent core arises is going to actually uproot this thing. It's, I think, easy to imagine a little bit how your sense of self arises with memories, feelings, some smells, you know, that you can get a sense of. Do you understand how that's going to uproot this innate view?

[80:24]

How this learned meditation, do you see how it's going to uproot it? You don't see that, right? As a matter of fact, you said you've already tried it and you got confused. It didn't really work. So, that one's... Actually, a lot of times meditations that are briefer, they're brief, but they require, they require the kind of intelligence that would find the other one really simple. So if the other one seems kind of, it's probably the case that the briefer one's not appropriate for you. Because the brief one looks simple, the other one looks rather complex. It's actually easier to do that one than the other one. And if you could do this one easily, then the dependent core arising would probably be alright for you. But maybe until you can do this one easily, you should do this one.

[81:26]

The hard one. The one that seems hard, you should do that one. I guess. Because it's actually easier. Okay? Yes? I just wanted to check. I think I definitely have this inherent self that is different than the five skandhas. You have a sense of inherent self which seems to be different from the five skandhas. So I have this idea that I'm... I have this concept that I'm... Can I ask a question? That visual experience of not cool, do you have a sense that there's a self that's inherently different from that not cool feeling? Great.

[82:29]

Great. Well, if you have a self like that, that's inherently different from that not coolness, okay, then you've established an existing self. But I don't think that's true what you just said. That you've established that it's inherently different from this yucky feeling. I think it's not inherently different. I think you've looked a little bit and you feel like it is different. And if it was inherently existent and it was inherently different, I mean, put it, if it's inherently different from your body and mind, then it is independent. It really is independent. That would be right. And that's your sense, right? I thought you said it was. Oh, so then you feel like it's not inherently different.

[83:32]

Is that right? Right. Right. That's right. It's not. But you have a tendency to do that that makes you feel like it's not inherently different. Okay. So it's what? It's humiliating. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's part of what this is about is to be humiliated. You know, bring... Humiliated to bring this view down to earth, you know. It's too fancy, this thing. This self-existent person is just too much. Part of it is just to bring it down, you know. But the funny thing is that we poor little people, you know. Can you believe it? For this extremely arrogant view. We actually inherently imagine ourselves as, you know, way up there, independent, able, as I said, able to leap a tall building at a single bound, speeding locomotive, you know, able to bend steel in your bare hands, able to imagine yourself and actually believe that you inherently exist independent of everything in the universe.

[84:51]

Thinking that there's a universe plus one thing. And what is it? It is the self. The inherently existing self. This is what human beings normally learn to do. This is not a very humble view of our personhood. Right? So it is embarrassing if you start to see that. That's why we need to practice compassion with this embarrassing So can you practice compassion with this embarrassment? Try to be humiliated. Try to tolerate being humiliated. Don't try to be humiliated. That will be just another arrogant trip. Okay, I'm going to bring myself down from that mountain and be a humble person and be humiliated.

[85:53]

I'm going to humble you. That's just like, you know. I hired this kid, you know, beat me up during recess to beat me up in public. So we went out there and he went, you know, knocked me all over the place. Huh? I wanted to be humble, you know. I wanted to be like one of the guys, you know, just like one of the guys on the playground rather than Rather than, you know, something other than one of the guys on the playground. Rather than king of the playground. So the king of the playground hired him up. Actually, didn't exactly hire him. I told him to beat me up. And he was very happy to do that. I said, not only can you beat me up, but I'm not going to beat you up back.

[86:56]

This is like you beat me up, but me not fight back. You know, a little bit, fight back, like cover the eyes and stuff. Then afterward, people say, why did you have him beat you up? You mean it didn't work? What? So no, don't try to be humble. Try to be patient with the humiliation. That's the job. Be patient with being... It's not even being patient with being a humble person or being patient with an ordinary person. Well, you are ordinary. But it's being patient with being ordinarily arrogant. It's patient with thinking that you're better than other people. Because they're all into interdependence. They need each other. You know, the needy people, right? They all kind of like, they like depend on their body and mind to exist, you know. They got to like, you know, they can't eat and also be independent like you, you know.

[87:59]

Put food into their mouth without, you know, and still be separate from their body. Poor things. But you and me, we are independent of our body and can still get our food. Fantastic. So it's more like humiliated and embarrassed by how arrogant we are that we would think that and believe it and hold it. Even though it's very ordinary to do that. It's very ordinary for people to be arrogant. And it's very common and ordinary for people to think they're not arrogant. Have you ever met any people that think they're not arrogant? Quite a few don't. So you're starting to see that you are, and it's very embarrassing, right? Okay? Please, tolerate that embarrassment. It's part of becoming familiar with this consciousness that innately imagines an inherently existing self.

[89:04]

Yes? Check something out? just allow me to be stable within that feeling of humiliation or something that I'm trying to get out. It seems to me that if I can just, the idea of being present is correct. I'm outside of these bad stuff. But if I'm actually just being what's going on, I can sort of tolerate but not That's fine. And the more you're in the five skandhas, which sometimes manifest as nausea, the more patient you are and the more centered you are in that, I think the more the body and mind will reveal this view. You'll be more able to calm down and see this fundamental abrogation to the self. Okay?

[90:10]

Anything else? Yes? Let's see now. What's the example? What's the question? Let's see. Imagine that I'm an independent self and it's separate from the body and mind. So I'm living in that world. And then would I, you're wondering, would I maybe eat a lot of cookies?

[91:21]

Well, before I get to that, that thing, your example, it seemed to me more the immediate thing would be, if I imagine myself to be independent, They have an independent existence. I think, first of all, I'm going to feel really... I might not feel it, but I might feel anxiety all around. However, the anxiety is in the body-mind, right? Which I'm independent of. So I want to keep that... So I want to stay away from that feeling of anxiety. Right? So what can I do to keep myself distracted from that feeling of anxiety? Well, eat a lot of cookies. That indulgence in sense pleasure will keep me from the experience of anxiety, which I'm supposed to be not anywhere near, right? So I'm separate from it, but how come it's like it's getting kind of close to be separate? I'm separate but close? So there's a danger now that there's going to be a mixing of the self with the anxiety.

[92:38]

So it seems that I would go to avoid the anxiety that's arising because I have this view of independent existence from the body. That's more immediate to me than that I would get into like a set of behaviors that would follow from this deluded view. It seems like when you have this deluded view and it's out in front, and it would be known to you enough to make plans based on it, that you would... the awareness would actually stop your plans. Once you start to become aware that you think this about yourself, you actually stop doing the things which you would do if you didn't know you had this view. Once you know you have it, you start to decrease the likelihood of behaviors that are based on not knowing that you have this view, like eating a lot of cookies or something.

[93:47]

No. There's a belief in inherent existence, but you don't necessarily think, oh, there's a belief in inherent existence, and that means, since I believe I'm inherently existing, that means I think that I'm inherently different from my body and mind, or I think I'm inherently the same. You don't necessarily think that because you're not examining this view. First of all, you have this view, and you do not examine it. It's an innate false view which is not examined. Once you start to notice it, then you should ask, then you should see if you think it's the same or different. Because, in fact, if it is inherently existing, it must be exactly the same as the body and mind, or it must be, you know, inherently different. It must be, otherwise the inherentness is lost. But if you don't, but if you think this, you don't necessarily think this or this. You don't necessarily think that.

[95:06]

That idea may be even difficult for you to imagine, that it has to be one or the other. These are traps you set for yourself to set yourself free. If you follow these traps, then you can be what you call deprogrammed. You put yourself in those two camps and then you get deprogramming for those two situations. But you don't necessarily know that you have to be put in those traps and that those traps would follow if you were. But if you could satisfy either one of those, if you could be inherently the same, then you would be inherently different. But you can't be. And if you could be inherently different, you could be inherently different. I'm inherently existing, but you can't be. So the two things that are necessary in order to satisfy your false view are, and won't be satisfied. But you don't necessarily know that now. But you don't have to know that this false view. You just go ahead and hold it. It's your birthright. Your, you know, your physical, social birthright.

[96:10]

Does this make sense? Yes? You're wondering why is it necessary to make certain distinctions? Again, you don't have amplification. Which ones? Tell me a particular... What? Maybe you should come over here and talk in this microphone. I can't hear you. No. Pardon? What about it? Why is it important to make the distinction of an inherent self?

[97:13]

Did you say? Okay. I'm trying to clarify your question, all right? Are you asking me why is it important to make a distinction, and what is the distinction you're asking me about? What is it? I guess the states of mind that you're talking about. I'm talking about a state of mind, okay, that is the primary condition for unhappiness. It is something that... Pardon? Isn't what something that naturally happens in Zazen? Is it something that naturally happens? it can happen naturally, but the way it would naturally happen would be that this thought would naturally arise, existing self would naturally arise, you would study it naturally, and it would naturally be forgotten.

[98:26]

That would be the natural way it would happen. So Dogen says, to study the Buddha way is to study the self. The self he's talking about is this inherently existing self. So if you're sitting in zazen, does this inherently existing self surface and present itself to you? Okay, so, but it could arise in zazen, this vision could arise, and Dogen says, when it arises, examine it. He says over and over, examine it. Examine it until you forget it. And when you forget it, body and mind drop away. So this could all happen naturally. But how does it happen naturally? It happens naturally. You're sitting in a zendo where some guy's sitting there talking to you about this inherent existence, this inherently existing idea. It's not this inherently existing idea. This idea. This guy's talking to you and you sit down and then while you're sitting, you notice this thing pops up.

[99:26]

Oh, look, there's an inherently existing Carmel. Wow. And you look at it, look at it, and you forget it. This all happens naturally. That's fine. But if you have this view, which most people do, which have, you know, see it, if you don't see it, you can't forget it. Because it just keeps itself going. You know, it keeps going and going and going. It perpetuates itself moment after moment. It's built in. It's innate. The only way to forget it is to study it. He says, the Buddha way, to learn the way of Buddha is to study this self. And to study the self means you forget it. You forget this view of an inherent existence of the self. You forget it. You become free of it. And then body and mind are dropped away. Well, what would you teach? To study the Buddha way is... You want to understand why I'm teaching to study the self?

[100:30]

To study the Buddha way is to study the self? You want to know why I'm teaching that? You don't follow me, right? You're trying to follow me. Are you? Well, are you or aren't you? You're not sure whether you're trying to or not? Pardon? You don't feel like I'm meeting you? Do you feel like I'm trying to meet your question? You don't. How would I be if I was trying to meet your question? What would I say? Tell me. I'll try it on. I would be compassionate. You don't feel my compassion? I'm sorry. Do you feel it now? Do you feel it now? What can I do to show it to you?

[101:38]

Pardon? If I say I'm sorry, would that help? No? Yes? I have pretty much the same question. Yes? OK. The thing that's always attracted me to Buddhism as opposed to other paths is that there's no types of faith. There's no what? As I understand it, I've never really encountered a type of faith. A what faith? A type of faith. A type of faith. That the Bible is inspired by God. Like, you're just supposed to believe that without necessarily encountering it. Okay. And so, I don't understand the difference between... I guess, dark flame... Like, when we've been teaching the class, we've been talking about convincing ourselves of certain things, and that seems to naturally happen, I think, in the practice of sitting there and trying to do it, and doing it, and putting the instruction in the cognizant search of the cognizant.

[102:59]

I'm this kind of person, and other people see me as that kind of person, and other people see me as this kind of person. And then, when that's just a cognize, I recognize there's this whole narrative about itself, and a person is this kind of person. And when it's just a cognize, I feel like I don't even convince myself. It naturally happens in the process of sitting there, being aware. So, we've been talking about convincing ourselves of Well, what you just described sounded intellectual and philosophical to me. Well, and philosophical separate from your experience?

[104:02]

It seems that way sometimes, yeah. What's the difference? One is the cognized being real and the concrete and important. One is the cognized being cognized. But isn't the cognized an intellectual event? Not when it's... When I think about it, I'm like, well, no, it's not an intellectual event. It's a... It's a difference. A cognition isn't an intellectual event. I think... I have two different experiences of cognition. Yes? Sometimes they... I think, oh, after this period, I'm going to go and brush my teeth. If I'm sitting there, I can either watch that as a plan, know that I'm planning, in which case, it's not an intellectual event, but if I think, like, oh, and then I start visualizing how that's going to be, it can be very real, and then it's a... Your language is okay, it's just that you, I don't understand how what you just said isn't intellectual.

[105:06]

Sounds to me like it's been intellectual the whole time you've been talking. Do you understand me? Do you understand the question I'm trying to put forward? Do I understand your question? I don't know if I do. Because I thought I heard you saying that a cognition is, isn't an intellectual event. And, uh, I don't understand that. I, I, I guess, um, the central question of my question is, there seems to be a difference between predicting myself or something, and There's a difference between experiencing something and convincing yourself. I can see that, that you could have an experience but not be convinced of anything.

[106:13]

I can see that. But... You're saying the opposite of what? What's the opposite of it? not having experiences. You said it's possible to have experiences and not be convinced of something. Yeah, that happens all the time. I'm saying more with... Oh, you're saying that you can be convinced of something and not have experience? No. I'm saying my understanding of Buddhism is that we're supposed to experience no-self rather than convince ourselves. Right? Is that accurate? You're supposed to experience no-self. A lack of inherent self rather than convince ourselves logically that there's a lack of inherent self. Such your understanding of Buddhism. So here's a different understanding of Buddhism, okay? And that is that the ultimate is to actually experience no-self. Okay?

[107:15]

But in order to actually experience no-self, the Buddha reasoned with his disciples, as you can see in that sutra. He discussed with them and reasoned with them about no-self. That part of the process of realizing and actually directly experiencing no-self is actually to reason with yourself and others. I listen to you and it makes a lot of sense and then I'll go and something will happen and the whole self will come up again. It's like understanding it on a certain level and my whole body adapting like there's no self seems to do different things. And the reaction from the body The more I sit and the more I watch how, the more I have mind like a wall, the less of the physical reaction of self. Well, mind like a wall at the level of Samatha is a kind of, what do you call it, moratorium or dispensation or vacation from certain kind of reactivity.

[108:29]

you're actually not getting involved in certain ways with phenomena that you usually do. So you calm down. The difference, like I said before, the difference is in calming, you're not running around between the different things. You're not getting involved with the different things. That's calming. That's calm. All right? Okay? But insight is that you don't even experience Difference between, you know, enlightenment and delusion, self and other, existence and non-existence. So in one case, you're still experiencing differences, but you're not getting involved in them. The other case, you actually see that there are no differences. You're free of differences. No, you don't have to calm down without letting go of those differences.

[109:33]

That's what I just said. You do let go of those differences and you do calm down. For example, letting go of the difference between you and me, not getting involved in the difference between you and me, is different than not experiencing the difference between you and me. One case is like I don't get involved with the illusion of us being separate. with the sense of you being a nice guy and somebody else not being a nice guy. I don't get involved with that. Hmm? What's a better example? You don't think of yourself. I'm talking about me. I don't get involved with being a nice guy. Or somebody else, you know. I don't get involved in that. Or I don't get involved in you not being a nice guy. Okay? Then I calm down, right? Isn't that what you're saying? I let go of my view of you. I let go. If you're nice to me, I don't get involved with that.

[110:36]

If you're not nice to me, I don't get involved with that. Then I calm down, right? It is letting go. It is letting go. But I still see you over there, right? It's kind of in the same mode, but I still may hold the view that I inherently live separately from you. I still may hold that view. The view may be totally untouched by this practice of non-involvement. I may still hold the view. And as soon as I would, if I would get involved again in some way and start talking again with you or interacting, the view comes right out again and starts influencing the situation. So there's a difference between letting something go and not being able to find it in the first place.

[111:36]

There's a difference between not being able to grasp something, because you can't even find it, and not getting involved in grasping. So there's a kind of a difference between calming practice and insight practice. So the insight practice is the only methodology, the only... ...letting go of the view of inherent self and not having the view that you and I are separate. Like, not getting involved, not having that view, the view that you want... Can only yoga do that, a discourse with a feature? Is it not? That's my question. The shamatha practice, the purpose of the shamatha practice is to understand the teacher's instruction. That's the point of it. The Buddha gave this teaching, you know, about no-self. But without practicing shamatha, you can't understand it. And if you're grasping two views of existence and non-existence, you can't understand the Buddha's teaching.

[112:45]

You have to give up those views. That's what the Buddha's taught. And then he taught that, but then we're having trouble understanding his teaching. These are his teachings about emptiness, the actual realization of the practice. Did someone else want to comment over there? Yes? There may still be that view of I let go. And the I that's being considered there might be an I which is imagined as inherently existing. That could still be there. But still, even holding that view, Actually, I wanted to ask about humiliation, but that's... Isn't that humiliation of the view?

[114:01]

I mean... Well, isn't it... It is something to be humiliated, right? You're humiliated about the view. We're talking specifically about being humiliated that you have this view. There's many ways to be humiliated. You can be humiliated by losing a race or by being a poor student in class. This could be humiliating. But being humiliated because you realize that you think you're an independent person. That's right. Otherwise you wouldn't be humiliated. So you wouldn't be humiliated about anything. You wouldn't need to be humiliated. You'd already be down, you know, about as low as you can get. So you couldn't be any lower because you're not lifting yourself up above where you are. You don't need to be humiliated. But if you realize you have this view, that in particular might be humiliating. And if it is, then you need to be patient with that humiliation because you need to keep admitting that you have this view.

[115:06]

Otherwise, it just keeps living in yourself happily driving you to misery and hatred. Until it is seen for what it is, namely, an illusion. So it's getting kind of late again, and there's still some questions, but it seemed like, you know, You have to stop sometime, right? Because fortunately, there's people here who just are really interested and want to ask questions. I think that's great. But I don't know when to end other than, you know, at some arbitrary point when it starts getting painful. So is there still some questions? Is that all right? Is that all right? Okay. Thank you.

[116:08]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_81.63