As you, I think, have all heard, the Zen teacher Dogen said that to study the Buddha way, or to learn the Buddha way, is to learn the self, and to learn the self, to forget the self, And that includes the conventionally existent self, the nominally existent self, and it includes studying the inherent existence.

[01:04]

inherent existence of the person and inherent existence of all things. Of course, studying inherent existence is, in some sense, not possible because there is no such thing. The way we look for it, we try to learn about this phenomenon which actually doesn't really exist at all. We think it does, but when we look, we never find it. We do find its absence, though, which is emptiness. We do find the lack of inherent existence, but we can't find the actual inherent existence. And in the study of the self and in the study of, as we get closer to the lack of inherent existence of the person, it's somewhat tricky and there's some danger of slipping into what we call nihilism.

[02:33]

We have to be careful of that. Well, if it isn't solid, then I have nothing at all. So if you look at your personhood, There's a conventionally existing person, there's a person that has conventional existence, and woven into that phenomena of a conventionally existing person is this, you know, a golden thread of inherent existence. And as you start to question the inherent existence of this person,

[03:36]

and you start to think maybe there isn't an inhibitor, and there's nothing solid about this, nothing really solid and substantial and self-empowering about this person, when you start to see that a little bit, or quite a bit, then you think maybe, well, there's nothing there at all. That's not true. There is. But that's when you start to slip into the other extreme. So one extreme is that person really is solid and that's the way it looks to most people this person really is solid but actually the person isn't solid but there's this sense of moving into the person and as you start to see that the person isn't solid then you're liable, you're in danger of flipping to the other side, namely, not just that the person isn't solid or self-empowered, but the person isn't there at all.

[04:38]

And so again, some people have actually begun to feel that, that, oh, it's not solid equals that there's nothing there. And it's not that there's nothing solid there. But there is something there. It's a regular, conventionally existent person. A dependently co-arisen person. But woven into the conventionally existent person is a sense of a not conventionally... Woven into the dependently co-arisen conventionally existent person, and there is such a person conventionally, woven in there is a sense of a person who is not dependently co-arisen, of a person who is not dependently co-arisen, of a person who is arisen from herself.

[05:49]

And that's mixed in with the conventionally existent one. And it's hard to see how it's woven in there. Someone said it's like, you know, he was talking about phenomena, like watching the skandhas, or feelings, or sensations. But he says it's like there's something written between the lines. But it's hard to see it's written between the lines. So part of what studying the self means is to actually get a sense of what's written between the lines of phenomena. in that story, in Case 37.

[07:04]

And by the way, Case 37, what it says, you know, the way Thomas Cleary translates that is Guaishan's active consciousness. But the word active, which is fine to translate as It does mean active or action, but that's the translation of a Sanskrit word, karma. That character is the character for karma. So karmic consciousness is also a way to translate that. So, well, there's two stories, but the story I want to refer to is a story where The two monks are discussing the Avatamsaka Sutra where it says that the fundamental affliction of ignorance is itself knowledge of all Buddhas. So the fundamental affliction of ignorance is this view of inherent existence.

[08:14]

projected onto the person, your own self and other selves and all things. That's the fundamental affliction of ignorance. And he says, that itself is the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. In other words, that's what all Buddhas know about, about that, about that, uh, that idea or that image or that conception of inherent existence, they understand that. Buddhas know lots of stuff, but there's one thing they all must know. They must know that this inherent existence is really an illusion and that really there is a lack of inherent existence of all phenomena. So they see the emptiness or non-existence of this inherent existence. And so I just explained it, and he could have explained it, but actually he went, he actually showed it in a real-life situation.

[09:35]

By... by saying, you know, see that boy over there? And he said, yeah. And he said, watch this. And he said, hey, you. And the boy turned his head. I think the boy was sweeping the ground nearby. He said, hey, you. And the boy turned his head. He said, is that not the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas? And then he said to the boy, what's Buddha? And the boy hesitated and became perplexed and kind of stumbled off. And he said, is that not the fundamental affliction of ignorance? And if I can maybe just insert here, someone had a talk with me about this a while ago. When called to, or I don't know, maybe the person said, when you're called to, or when you're called to, do you turn your head? And I think I said, the head turns. So, the...

[10:43]

The conventionally designated person has a head, usually, right? You attribute personhood to people with heads. Take a head away, you say, no, it's not a person. Head. So, it's got a head, and it's got a name, so you call to it, and because of the way it conventionally exists, when you call to it, the conventionally existing person turns her head. But actually I said the conventionally existing person turns the head, but really the head of the conventionally existing person turns. The conventionally existing person does not control the five aggregates. But there's another idea there of an inherently existing person, and that person is in charge of the five aggregates, and that person turns the head.

[11:58]

But the head of the conventionally existing person will turn when properly addressed. At the same time, it's possible that the preconception of inherent existence imagines that it's going to turn the head. This is karmic consciousness. Karmic consciousness is the one who's in control of the five aggregates and directs the intention of the psychophysical complex. I think ego consciousness can exist, but if we mean by ego consciousness, the consciousness which is imagining itself to be inherently existing or existing independently, make the idea of inherent existence equal to ego consciousness, then ego consciousness imagines that it's in charge based on the idea that it's inherently existing.

[13:11]

If you want to say just a sense of self, conventionally existing, and not call that ego. And we can distinguish between the two that way. So, when called to, then, what is Buddha? The conventionally existing person does not have a... necessarily... doesn't apply to the conventionally existing person. The head of the conventionally existing person doesn't turn when asked, what is Buddha? The head's already turned, as a matter of fact. So now the head's turned and the conventionally existing person's there, and a question is being addressed towards the conventionally existing person, but when asked, what is Buddha? the sense of inherent existence comes forth.

[14:16]

Can you see why that would come forth at that time? No? Why? Want to be right? Yeah. Want to be right, but all... Yes? You want to come back... You're coming back with some fundamental... The real thing, right? So this is a job for... This is not a job for the conventionally existing person. The conventionally existing person has nothing to say about this. I don't know. What are you talking about? Whatever, you know. Let's have lunch. But the enhanced existence, this is a job for that because that's very closely related to something real. So then that comes into play, and the person is stymied, confused, can't function very well, because the precious inherent existence has now, the belief in inherent existence has now taken over the body.

[15:32]

Before that, the belief was there, but it was in the body. Now you say, what's Buddha? And it comes to the foreground. And when it's in the foreground, usually things get very awkward and it's hard to function. Does it interfere with the function? It doesn't really interfere with the function of five aggregates. It just makes the five aggregates function in a painful, awkward, stiff, bound-up way. Because the five aggregates are now looking for this thing called Buddha, which is a reflection of this inherent existence. So this false consciousness is now activated and is very influential on the five aggregates. The five aggregates are also part of the way this consciousness arises in dependence on the five aggregates.

[16:43]

It's just that what it's imagining has no existence. And the Buddha that it's looking for is just another inherently existent thing. So it can't find this kind of Buddha. And it also feels ashamed that it can't find it, because it's been asked about it. So then he says, is this not the fundamental affliction of ignorance? There it is, functioning right there. And it's right there in the same package, perfectly, nicely functioning, conventional self that just, you know, you say, hey you, and it just perfectly turns its head. Because it's like, it's keyed in to hey you. So there's no problem, it's very smooth. That's just what a Buddha would do, more or less. But when you say to Buddha, what is Buddha, or what is inherent existence, or who's really there, that question doesn't catch anything.

[17:51]

So the response will be very similar to, hey, you. Yes? It just occurs that What if Buddha just takes the person up into their head? There's nothing very alive that can happen out of that. Takes the person up into her head. Instead of just being right there in the moment, something and find something mentally to respond to what is Buddha. Well, I mean, I think that's right, except that one wouldn't... The reason for... One doesn't do that. One doesn't go up into one's head unless one thinks that, you know, one is inherently existing. Right. So that's where the awkwardness and the... Right. But actually, the other person was totally in his head.

[18:55]

You say, hey, you, and the head turned. Yeah, right. Yeah. Not... They weren't in the head. They were not in their head when you... They didn't really go to their head. It seems like we say they went to their head, but actually they went to the inherent existence. That's where they went. And then because you go there, you're totally perplexed because you have nothing to work with then. Exactly. I said... I said they go to inherent existence, but really it's more like the belief in inherent existence comes out and is strongly presented at that time. And that causes behavior. And we can maybe say, and it seems like they go to their head, I think what we mean is that their body-mind situation gets screwed up.

[19:55]

Because we say that this kind of thing is conceptual, right? So that's up in the head, right? There's something to that, right? The brain is very important in coming up with this idea. In some sense, you might say, it seems like the brain is more important in coming up with this idea of inherent existence than the fingernails are. So in that sense, you could say, you go to the head, but really... the concept of inherent existence gets very strong. The image of this inherently existing person who's going to give a good answer about this Buddha comes forward. Okay? Let's see. Now we're going to go off into questions and stuff. But before we do that, let me stop for a second here. I want to say a little bit more before the questions, okay?

[21:04]

So, again, I was talking to somebody who was having a hard time finding this image or this object of awareness, which is this kind of like independently existing person. So I again referred back to the situation where you're looking at the five skandhas, you're experiencing the five, there's an experience of the five skandhas, but you feel like there's somebody there who's pretty much as he used to be or she used to be. You have a sense of, yeah, this is happening, this body-mind experience is happening, but, you know, there's kind of an eye here that's the same eye that there was 20, 30 years ago, if you're over it. And we don't necessarily think, oh, that means that I think I have the permanent self here.

[22:09]

But this sense of something that's changing slower than the five aggregates, it's pretty much implying the belief in a permanent self. And if you can get a sense of a permanent self, you're getting close to the inherent self because the inherent self, an inherent self, I should say, is a permanent self. If it inherently exists, it's permanent. If it's self-establishing, so if you get a sense of something that's a little bit more permanent than the surround, that's a clue that you're getting close to it. If you get some sense of, like, it's basically really the same thing. I actually have the same, I feel exactly the same. Five. I mean, it's basically, I just feel like I'm exactly the same person. And I can't remember when I was two, so I don't know. But I clearly remember when I was five, and it seems like the same person here, that's here now, is the one that's there.

[23:17]

The one that was there is the same one as now. Sense of the same person being there the whole time, the whole 52 years. And the surround has been changing, but the same person. This is kind of a pretty good view of the inherently existing self. Now, if you can get that sense, then just basically hang out with that. And again, people are reporting that they have a... If you find it through that instruction, some people have found it that way, once you get a sense of it, it's in some ways easier to keep track of when they're walking around outside the zendo than in the zendo. But basically, this is something to think about for a while.

[24:18]

to think about it, to think, is this the inherently existing self, to actually look at it. And again, it might be easier, you might feel better about doing it outside the zendo than in the zendo, which is fine. Looking at this thing, if you're calm, whether you're in the zendo or out of the zendo, if you're quiet and calm, you probably have an easier time doing this than if you're talking to somebody. It's not impossible to watch this while you're talking to somebody. But it's easier if you just... Oh yeah, there's that five-year-old. But it's not really a five-year-old, it's me in the five-year-old body. Yeah, there it is. And then just be with that and be quiet with it. Be quiet with it, be quiet with it, be quiet with it.

[25:24]

And maybe you'll start to see a little bit, there's something even more core about this than the sense of continuity. And there is also a sense, a crucial sense of independence, that it doesn't depend on anything. So there's a sense of permanence and there's a sense of independence. But the funny thing is that the sense of independence seems to be highlighted or more clearly exposed when you start to see that it's somewhat dependent. And I think what that is, is that there's this sense of, of somebody that's there that's pretty much the same somewhat permanent and kind of independent no actually at first very independent of the surround very independent so that it really

[26:39]

body, the nine-year-old body, the 50-year-old body, the 57-year-old body, all these bodies are changing, all these minds are changing, but this thing actually is quite independent of it. Then you start to see that it's not really independent of it, that it's very closely related to these changes, that you always use these five aggregates to find it. Now, as you start to realize it actually is very closely related to the five aggregates, but still there's something permanent about it, you're getting a picture of it, but it's still kind of a little bit puffy and gross. When you start to realize that it's somewhat dependent, then there's a certain part of it that drops away. And you go to an even more core part of it that's independent. of that dependence that the other parts dependent on.

[27:43]

So you have this somewhat puffy thing which is simplified and condensed and distilled down to be something that's not floating in the neighborhood of or even far away from your psychophysical experience but actually in the psychophysical experience. It's independent but yet it depends on it a little bit because it's right around there. because also it's this thread, this gold thread that runs through the conventionally existing person, which does depend on the five aggregates. It's more condensed then. Then if you can start to see that actually this person depends on, what do you call it, conceptual imputation, Then you find out there's an aspect. You know that person depends on some kind of imputation. There's an aspect of that person that doesn't.

[28:46]

So you get down to an even more core sense of a part that doesn't depend, that actually is even self-sufficient in the face of all this other dependency. that really is not dependent on anything. But it's clearer and more diamond-like or, you know, indestructible to see the dependence of the situation and realize that it still doesn't really depend on anything. And then again, at each stage of this revelation, be quiet with what you find out. And so there it is. That's what it looks like. And although we

[29:51]

we come up with very different conventionally designated people because they depend on different perspectives, different history, different bodies, and all that. This particular one is very similar for all of us. And... And... Uh... From this point on, we can go different ways to get over this view. But I just wanted to get this far with you now. And if you want to now, we could have, like, this thing happening of the questions. You want to do that now? Hmm? Hmm? Right? The alternative is to talk about what to do next with this.

[30:59]

Okay. There's two ways. And, you know, in some ways, the way that the Buddha taught was to look at how this thing is a dependent core arising. The middle way school people feel that for a lot of people, another form of analysis is faster than the way of trying to see that this thing that you finally found where you've taken into account all this dependency and there's something there that eludes all this dependency. You found this really independent core Huh? You... Well, when you look at it, you see it. You found the view.

[32:02]

You found the consciousness. But you're actually seeing something now. You're actually seeing this thing. Like when I sit here and say, there's this little guy there that was there, or this big guy, or anyway, there was anyway, certainly a wonderful guy that was there at five, ten, and is still there. This wonderful... young, vital thing in this... You used to be in this great, young, healthy body that was getting stronger and bigger and more skillful. Now it's in this decaying body. But it's the same thing. Consciousness that sees that. But I actually see it. There's something there like that. There's like a diamond core. It's like it's a diamond... It's a diamond core, yeah. It's a diamond-like... indestructible self. An independent... Well, it's indestructible in the sense that it's permanent, but it also takes into account that it can be annihilated.

[33:09]

So, if it changes at all, if you would take away its inherent existence, then it would seem to be annihilated. So, inherent existence flips to annihilation. So, that's the kind of thing it is. It's got to be one of those extremes. There's other things, though, and you can't see those extremes when you imagine that they're there, but there's other things, though, that it would also entail, and those are the things to look at to realize. So one of them, the most straightforward one, and the one which is kind of implied by the you know, what we call the absorption in the self receiving its function would be to watch this thing, the absorption in the self receives its function. But this self does not receive its function.

[34:09]

This self has its function. The regular self, the conventional existing self, is constantly responding So to be absorbed in that self and see that self only would be to not see this other self. And that would be the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas, is that in one sense they see the conventionally existing self only. However, one can be looking at the conventionally existing self and be absorbed in that, like when somebody says, hey you, and you turn your head, But you just don't realize that this other view is just in the background. So that's why in some ways it's forward, eliminate it, and then you can see the self which receives its function, which is your daily self. You don't turn your head, well I guess you do, but in this particular story you turn your head because somebody says, hey you, the body receives the function of the head turn

[35:19]

So you observe of seeing that self is the way a Buddha behaves. That's the immutable knowledge of Buddha. That's the only self that actually has conventional existence. The other one doesn't even have conventional existence. But just to try to look at one won't work because the other one is woven in there and sometimes you can't see it. So let's bring it forward and let's look at that one. Rather than looking now at the the good one, I mean, the healthy one, the one which will be released from this view. So, it's very simple in a way. Just simply look and see, does this self, is it exactly, completely the same as the five Or is it exactly completely different from the five aggregates?

[36:30]

That's basically it. But, and I said this before, before you do that, you need to think about this. And this is a... Again, if you still believe in this self that's been there all along, then this type of thinking will be karmic thinking. There will be a sense of, there's a conventional self that's just like, you know, functioned by being in this class and hearing this instruction, and hearing this instruction, there's like taking notes and thinking about this instruction. But there's another idea that there's somebody in here who's controlling the five aggregates, and if there's that person, that person's going to try to get in on the deal. either say, you know, you can't do this practice or I'm going to make it possible for you to do it. And it's going to control the five aggregates into doing this practice. It's going to be involved.

[37:34]

So to this extent, when you hear this instruction, even the looking for the five aggregates will be polluted, I mean, even looking for the five aggregates or looking for this belief in inherent existence will be polluted by or defiled by the belief in the five aggregates, in the inherent existence. So you'll think, to some extent, this person is organizing this search for itself. Or this independent person is rebelling against this search. or this independent person is controlling the five aggregates to say, no, this is not possible, or whatever. So someone asked, is this kind of thing involved in setting up insight? Is it karmic? And it's karmic to the extent that there's this belief it's karmic. However, it can eventually be not karmic. Once that belief is dropped, then looking for the

[38:39]

some inherently existing image, or the image of some inherent existence looking for that, will not be done by an inherently existing person. It'll just be that the mind is maybe just always looking out for that. For the welfare of all beings, the conscious... for these false consciousnesses. So anyway... There's one step between finding it and determining whether it's exactly the same, completely the same as the five aggregates, or completely different. And that step is to convince yourself by thinking. and also by surfacing your resistance to this idea that it must be, if it inherently exists, it must be exactly completely the same as the five aggregates, or it must be completely different. To convince yourself that way, there's some part of your mind which needs to be convinced, because when that mind is convinced, when that aspect of your mind is convinced, then when you can't find it in either category,

[39:51]

that part of the mind will be convinced that it hasn't been found and there will be a transformation of the mind. Now, when that transformation occurs, when you really actually are impacted by not being able to find this thing which you actually saw for a while there and have been seeing since you were five, four, three, two, one and a half, It was when we started to see this thing, about that time probably. And then before that, before we had even a conventional self, we saw it too. Even before we had a conventional person, we were projecting the sense of inherent existence onto verbal, non-differentiated, subject-object space. I mean, there was no subject-object. Even before that, we were projecting this inherent existence. This mass, amorphous, undifferentiated life space had inherent existence.

[40:57]

Then once we see an other, then the self had inherent existence and the other had inherent existence. I had inherent existence. My mother had inherent existence. Okay, any questions about before the other questions come? Oh, thank you, yeah. So the mind is transformed, but first of all, the mind is transformed when you're sitting in this class and you hear this instruction. At some point, you may be able to experience some tumblers falling into place. That's a transformation of mind. Another transformation of mind happens when you hear this instruction, but then when you actually think about this until you feel in yourself something shifts and you're convinced by thinking about this and reasoning with your mind that, yeah, it must be one or the other if it inherently exists.

[42:05]

You've argued with yourself and with your experience and with your reasoning and with the way you think. You've thought thoroughly about this. well, I don't know thoroughly, you've thought enough. You've thought far enough so that something shifts and you feel like, I'm convinced. I get it. It must be either completely the same or completely different and if it's not, it doesn't inherently exist. And you can do that with a conversation with somebody else and you can also do it in your own head. But there's two levels of shifting. One is I talk or read a book, and you get it, that that's what you need to do. But you haven't yet been convinced, but you're convinced that you understand what you need to do. Then you reason with yourself, and that first case is a transformation, it's an insight. And then you reason with yourself until you have another insight. And you now actually walks around being convinced that an inherently existing thing, an inherently existing person,

[43:08]

that must be exactly the same as the aggregates or completely different. You understand that way now. Then, from then on, until you be completely absorbed in the realization of emptiness, you have that understanding. And when you're sitting in concentration, that understanding is there. And you're still, however, to some extent, not totally convinced of emptiness, but you're somewhat convinced of emptiness, so to some extent you're not thinking in terms of, I'm doing this meditation practice anymore. But it still looks like you are. The appearance in existence is still coming up for you. But anyway, I'm just saying that the next transformation may take quite a bit of combining this understanding of emptiness, this insight into emptiness, of this... and bringing that to your concentration practice for a long period of time before you're totally... totally...

[44:31]

I don't know what the word is. Permeated by it. Totally permeated by it. Well, it depends on your concentration practice. It depends on many factors, but if you're thinking about this, that that will slow it down. Okay, that's kind of an overview of this process, which looks more and more, to me, more and more like you're going to be able to get into it. I just wanted to present these questions now because they're related to what you just presented. Oh, excuse me. Did you look at that note? I forgot to bring it. Didn't that note you gave me? Yeah, could you go get it, please?

[45:35]

Sorry. I'm sorry you're going to miss these questions. It is? Thank you. Yes? This is from one of the small groups. So the group wanted to be really sure. People wanted to be really sure that they understood examples of presentation. Excuse me, I didn't get the first question. Some have actually presented the fixed view of an inherently existing self, and some have presented not the one. If you would look for that one and not find it, the other is still there.

[46:41]

So, if that surfaces and you think that's it, okay, but Thank you very much. Now look more. Just keep looking more. That's not it. You don't have to spend time refuting that one. You don't have to spend time forgetting that one. Well, that can be forgotten, too. And there is no self like that. Even the nominally existent self is not separate from the five aggregates. So there's nothing like that, but we don't want to spend a lot of time on that one. Does that make sense? because the real the real troublemaker is still haven't been addressed so we're going to run into you know surrounding or related phenomena that are also the products of ignorance but aren't the thing we really want to work on we want to find the the central one so uh Did somebody want me to give all, many examples of these gross kind of, these approximations?

[47:47]

Is that what they wanted? They wanted to know what they looked like. That's one example. Did you get that one? Which I mentioned before. Another one would be that you'd see, it is related to the five aggregates, but it's not the conventional existing self. The difference being that the conventionally existing self, doesn't that change? Don't you have a conventional existing self that changes? And don't you know some other people that have that kind of self that you've watched change over the years? You haven't seen them for a while? And you say, oh my God, they got older. I wonder if I did. And then you ask them and they say, yeah, you did. You're aging. You're getting old, Dad. That's one that, you know, we accept that there's a changing one, right? And that's in the way we... by the five aggregates. Right? You look at your own five aggregates and you see, oh, the colors in the face are changing.

[48:48]

There's these spots on my face now. And the skin's changing. It's wrinkling and twisting and turning and the fingers are swelling. You see, this is five aggregates, right? This is information and this is the existing self. And you say to other people, do you see this one too? And they say, yeah. Okay? That's not it. That's the conventionally existing one that's changing. But there's another one that's very closely related and that you associate with this changing situation, but that one doesn't change. It's closely related. It's almost exactly the same, except that it doesn't get old, or it gets old very slowly. Yeah, there's like a Peter Pan. That's probably what Peter Pan's about. And they put it on the boys. Because, you know... But they had eternal girls, too. There's eternal girls. There's... There's what?

[49:48]

Puerh eternus and Puella eternus, right? There's eternal girls and eternal boys inside these aging bodies. And, you know, sometimes there's a little bit of... Well, it's... Myself's a little older. But basically, it's pretty much the same. That's the idea. Now, and that's... And again... It's in relationship to the five aggregates because there's this kind of stark contrast like, geez, how did this happen to this eternal youthful being? So there is that association and you don't juxtapose this young self with other people's young bodies. So actually I went to, when I was in Vancouver, I went to I gave a talk. The seminar I gave was at the University of British Columbia, and I went to exercise at the student exercise area.

[50:50]

So I was exercising with these college students. And so there I was. I was a self inside of this body with these other bodies. But my self is pretty much as young as their self, but not my body. My self was inside of an old body with all these young bodies. And I could see that this body was just not on a par. Theirs were like, you know, they looked like they're growing, you know, and full of energy. And also... they, inside of those bodies, they think those bodies are indestructible. And I can see why they think that. But I think that this body is not indestructible, and part of the way I can feel that is by comparing it to theirs. These five aggregates are not like those five aggregates.

[51:51]

But the person inside here, just as young as them, I have five aggregates around here, There's lots of experience in these five aggregates that are associated with this young self, but there's a young self inside here that's just as young as theirs. But I'm surrounded by experience and memories that they don't have. So it's a different five aggregates, a different conventional person, or it's very similar. This is a little more subtle than to imagine a self that wasn't even associated with these five aggregates. But that's still not it. A more subtle thing is to realize that still this specification of this golden boy still depends on some mental imputation of golden boy, of youth, of the same person, of identifying it. There's still some identification, some naming of it, some identification that it depends on, otherwise you wouldn't be able to find it.

[52:56]

It doesn't depend on anything. It doesn't depend on the five aggregates. And if that imputation did not occur, it seems to be that it would still be there. So if you took away the five aggregates and took away even the mental imputation, it would still be there. But what, you know, that's what it is. But if we look at that, that will break down. But we think that's what it is, and that's what it looks like. That's pretty subtle. And then if you find that, then still, it's not exactly a clearer and clearer image of it. The image can get clearer and clearer until it's like, you know, you know, quite familiar, and steady your view of it. Then you're ready to try to see how nonsensical it is, how coherent it is, and actually be convinced that it's no such thing.

[54:06]

There is no such thing as a thing that doesn't depend on anything. But we think there is. We do. And we've got a mind which keeps thinking that way. makes us a little awkward in this world. That's what makes us a little uptight, a little, you know, not able to dance with this constantly changing five aggregates, which include a conventionally existing person, too. So this conventionally existing five aggregates and conventionally existing person are changing and dependently arisen, but this thing in the middle We need to look at, study, and forget. So I don't know who asked the question, but is that something about, does that address it? Okay. Okay. Next question. Next one, it's just a whole clump of questions. Whole clump of questions, okay. Okay, we'll have a clump now.

[55:08]

Here comes the clump. Listen to the clump. So this part I think you just addressed a little bit. What's necessary about presenting it anyway since, as you say, it's generally present? Say it again. What's necessary about presenting it anyway since, as you say, it's generally present? It's because people are unclear about it. That's why. When you say, tell me or show me the fixed view, and someone tries but can't tell you or show you the fixed view, is this person who can't do that necessarily holding a view of non-enlightenment, like the samadhi that you were talking about yesterday? Yes, they are. I mean, I think so. I haven't so far read anybody who wasn't. Except for people that have done this work. Otherwise, it's innate. It comes with the territory. It's one of your tricks. It's the old trick.

[56:10]

It's the old trick that the young dog knows how to do and never forgets. Even after we can't remember our name or anything, before we have a name, we can do this. And after we can't remember our name or even who our children are, we can still do it. This is like reliable delusion. But it can be dropped. Yes? All right. So Arhat has stopped holding the fixed view. Yeah. And they perceive it as mere perceptions. So they actually perceive it as a possession, and yet they still have a subtly dualistic perception of reality. Who else could be this? No. I think Arhat's, you know, Buddha isn't Arhat. So the Arhat's view, the way Arhats see things is the same as the way Buddhists see things, except that they can't simultaneously see that conventionality is just conventionality and lacks inherent existence.

[57:15]

They can see that, but they can't simultaneously see conventionalities when they see lack inherent existence. Only Buddhists can do that. But the way they see emptiness is the same way the Buddha sees emptiness, and the same way that a bodhisattva... who has that same level of insight as an arhat, same way a bodhisattva would. When they understand emptiness, you don't understand emptiness and then have a subtle dualistic impression. But to be able to see, and this is one of the criticisms which may stand about arhats is they have this understanding of emptiness or a bodhisattva even who has this view, but they do not yet understand the mind which sees conventionalities simultaneous with emptiness.

[58:17]

Because you can go back and forth. So it's not like you're non-functional in the world of conventionalities even before you're a Buddha. You just have to go back and forth. Whereas the special thing about Buddhas is they see both simultaneously. Okay. Yeah? Is that it? Okay. I don't know if there's... Let's have Joel. Okay. This is convention, right? Good. Good. And I have this idea that perhaps my IES, my inherent existent self, is not only very close to this conventional self, but actually interdependent with it. Like they're sort of like my conventional self is a manifestation of the IES, of this inherent being of the self.

[59:26]

So what I'm trying to do is really focus in And I'm starting to think that maybe I'll never be able to see the eternal existence itself in the way I think I'm going to see it. So I keep just trying to pay attention to my conventional self, and slowly just immerse myself in that, that somehow my eternal existence itself will come through that. But I don't know if that's really going to do that. It might. And it is a good place to look, because the conventional existing self is, you know, the five aggregates for its designation so you're looking in a you're looking in a place where the the the inherently existing cell does have something to do with the five aggregates so you're looking kind of in the right place but i i think it would still be you know it doesn't take that much to sort of get in touch with it just like this don't you have a sense that there's something that there's somebody that's kind of like has been there all along

[60:27]

Well, it can, but don't, no, it's hard to see it, but don't you have sort of a sense of it? Yeah. And isn't he kind of like, don't you kind of feel like he's the same, has been pretty much the same? Maybe, maybe slowly changing. Yeah, maybe changing a little, but, you know, you got to start there, that he's changing slower than the five aggregates. You don't see it vividly yet, but you have kind of a sense of something like that. I mean, it sounds like you do. Most people do. Some people are not aware of it, but a lot of people are, actually. And, okay, so there's a start. And you can bring it, then you can start looking at things like, well, is it associated with the five aggregates or not? There might be, well, let's say, if you say no, then I would say, well, okay, let's keep looking until you find something that is. Then you might be walking along and say, oh, yeah, that is, that self, that kind of permanent self, it's there, but it also kind of like is in contrast to this other, to the five aggregates.

[61:40]

You notice that it is changing slower than they are. So you kind of got a sense of it there that it's a little bit more permanent than they are. And then you might sense more and more, it's actually, it may be inside the one that's changing a little more slowly than the five aggregates. Maybe there's one inside there that's changing a lot slower than the five aggregates. And you finally find one that really doesn't change at all. There is the idea of a permanent one. And the permanent one would be the one that doesn't depend on anything. But it may take you a while to get to that one. And after getting to that one, Then if you find out that it doesn't depend on anything, that's the one that you will not be able to find. But you've got to get a view of it before you can know that you haven't found it, a sense of what it would look like. So it would look like this, that at first,

[62:43]

you saw dependent on mental imputation and then, but you still had some kind of like reservation about that. So yeah, I know it depends on mental imputation, but not really. So you get down to the point where it depends on the five aggregates, it depends on mental imputation, and it depends on the five aggregates, but it's more stable. And then you say, yeah, but it's still, it has more, self-sufficiency and self-establishment and autonomy and independence and the things which it depends on have on it. So the mental imputation depends on it more than it does on the mental imputation. It's different. It's less dependent than anything in the neighborhood. Until finally you say, reasonably speaking, you actually think that it does not depend on this stuff. So there are various things you can do. Different things will work for different people. There's various techniques, but one of them would be just take away all the stuff it depends on and then see what it would look like to see something that doesn't depend on anything.

[63:53]

What would that be? And then you realize you cannot find anything that doesn't depend on anything. But that's actually what you are believing in, is something that is independent. Something independent doesn't depend on anything. Therefore, it's permanent because you can take everything away and it'll still be there. It can't be there. By getting a picture of what it would look like, and you actually do believe in this thing, and finding out what you do believe in, and then realizing you can't find it. Well, you're searching for the view, but also the view actually So finding the view, the false view, or the consciousness which does this, is actually to find out what the consciousness is looking at. So you're looking for the consciousness, you find the consciousness at the same time you find what it's aware of. So you're looking for both of them, actually.

[64:54]

But you can't see the consciousness except by what it views. So you won't be able to imagine what the consciousness, the consciousness wouldn't look like something, because consciousnesses don't look like anything, but consciousnesses imagine things that would look a certain way. So when you find out what this consciousness would be looking at, you falsify the consciousness. Yeah, because you're like in the consciousness. You've like settled in, found the false view, and now you find out what it would be looking at. So when it can't find anything, the view drops away too. The view drops at the same time its object drops. Now, one subtle point, which I think may sound very philosophical, but it might help you in this, is that you can't find anything that doesn't depend on anything. But you think you've got something there which doesn't depend on anything. So you're looking for this thing which doesn't depend on anything, but there's no such thing.

[66:00]

And you can convince yourself of that. But emptiness, in terms of being able to find it and actually experience it as something, have a phenomenal experience of emptiness, emptiness depends on something. Emptiness depends on some phenomena. Emptiness doesn't really exist. You can't really find emptiness except in dependence on something. And the fact that something that doesn't depend on anything, you can find that unfindability of this thing which doesn't depend on anything. It does depend on the view, that's right. But it's a view of something that doesn't depend on the view. It's a view, it's a false view, it's a view of something.

[67:04]

and that something which it's viewing says, this thing does not depend on me. Without seeing it, it wouldn't be there, and yet what it says across it is, I do not depend on the thing that's looking at me. Actually, to find it, the step before finding it is to say, well, it does depend a little bit on what's looking at it. And then to find out, yeah, it does depend, but still not really. So admitting the dependency gets you down to the place where you find out that really there's a core of absolute, absolute independence that we believe in. That we believe this is the core affliction of ignorance. But it doesn't make any sense. That's why it can be disproved. But you have to get down there where you're seeing, yeah, it does depend on something, but not really.

[68:12]

But that doesn't make sense. And if it does depend on something but not really, then to not really depend on anything, it would take all the stuff away and I'd still have something. All the things that it doesn't depend on, which are around it, I can take them all away and imagine, but there's nothing left then. So it's going to be exactly the same as the five aggregates, or completely different. I won't find this thing. But the first thing is, find something like what I'm talking about here, and then we can, like, until we forget it. And again, we're going to find this self, we're going to find this fundamental affliction of ignorance, and this fundamental affliction of ignorance we're going to study until we have the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas.

[69:16]

It can happen on different levels. But the first level, we're going to actually be thinking about it and talking about it until actually something happens that will actually change, that our understanding will change about this thing. But we have to find it in order for it to change. And once it changes, then we have a long yogic meditation path to take this understanding. and make it gradually go into the samadhi of this thing. Because once we refute this thing, then we can do, then we can see and meditate on the self which receives its function, the conventional self, which is now understood as and we no longer believe in the gold thread running through it. So we just meditate on this, which is our daily life, while simultaneously immersing ourselves in the emptiness of the inherently existing self.

[70:17]

Yesterday there was a question that your presentation changed from two to three steps, like besides five advocates or only five advocates, or say, at least, depending on the invitation. Or you would, or not in that, would it, I don't understand why, um, how they relate to each other. When I hear, like, uh, let me just say it again. The two presentations? The one is that I heard yesterday for the first time that you haven't exist yourself, that we experience it or knew it or see that outside the project.

[71:58]

No, I just think that's one kind of finding that someone could bring. is that they say, oh, I found this belief in an inherently existing self, and it's separate from the five aggregates. And I would say, okay, that's a deluded view, but that's not the one we're looking for. That's too gross. That's just something that someone could report, and we say, okay, keep looking. That's not subtle enough. Yes. Yes. Once you find the subtle one, yeah, once you find the subtle one then basically a great deal by finding the subtle one.

[73:02]

Then what you do is you become just kind of like hang out with the subtle one for a while, quietly, until you become very familiar with it. That's, find it and then be quiet with it for quite a while. And I'm giving instructions of what to do next, but you really shouldn't do anything next. Wait a while before you do anything. Hi, it's a dead point from the beginning of the instruction. I said it's true. when I give what instruction? That's the next step, though, okay? The next step after you find this thing. So I'm telling you this because you might find it, okay? I'm telling you, if you find it, don't do anything right away. Be quiet with it for some time. But some of you may have already found it and been quiet with it, so I'm just That there's another step, there's two more steps, basically.

[74:03]

It's okay, you can try to understand this, it's all right, go ahead. Yeah, of course, and then I say, just keep looking until you find something more subtle, or something different anyway. So it doesn't make sense to you to locate... That's not the next step, though. Okay? The next step is, after you find it and are settled with it, the next step will be to have a little talk with yourself and convince yourself that this thing you found, if it really does exist all by itself, then it will be either inside or outside. Now, you don't think it's outside. Okay? You don't think that, right? No. All right?

[75:10]

You don't think that, right? You think it has some association with the five aggregates. Yeah. And that's the one we're looking for. It's the one that has some association with the five aggregates. Okay? But... later i'll tell you this now later when you look at how it must be exactly the same as the five aggregates and you find out that it is not exactly the same as the five aggregates then you still might try to get out of it and say okay okay i changed my mind i take it back i don't want to do this anymore it's different from the five aggregates but you've already found this thing and you've realized this has to be exactly the same as the five aggregates, which you almost could see. You don't think it's exactly the same, but you've agreed with yourself that it must be exactly the same or exactly different. You don't think it's different at all right now. You think it's a little different, but you convince yourself it must be exactly the same.

[76:13]

Now you see if you can prove it's exactly the same, and when you can't, then you might flip to the other extreme and say it's completely different. But you've already convinced yourself that that's okay. Because if it was completely different, that would still be a recourse for inherent existence. If it was completely different, it would be inherently existent. In fact. But, in other words, inherent, completely different, it could stand without any dependence, take the five aggregates entirely away, take away all the categories of experience, and it would still be there. Now, you don't think that yet. You're not saying that yet. But in fact, if that was the case and you could find something after you took away the five aggregates, that would be a permanent thing. Okay? You don't think that yet, but once you find this subtle version of inherent existence and you try it in both those cases, you will be more thoroughly convinced that there's no such thing.

[77:16]

But before you look how you would be convinced if you did look in those two ways and didn't find anything. But you don't have to do that until after you find it. But you can start beforehand if you want to, but I think it's better to look for it than to do this convincing thing. Because once you find it, basically, you're kind of on the track now. you've located your delusion you've found the fundamental affliction of ignorance and so now I got to do is just and there's many ways to study it and I'm just saying one way there's other ways too we can also study it by studying dependent co-arising instead of this way but I'm just trying this way for starters until I find somebody that I think could just has to do dependent co-arising method

[78:19]

I don't know if that was any... It doesn't look like that helped yet, but, you know... Parent? Good. Doing what? Doing what to, really? What do you want to tell us? Do you want to tell us what you found so far? Then we can tell you whether you got the subtle self. Go ahead. You've seen. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yes.

[79:33]

OK. It doesn't depend on anything? Already? You can? Uh-huh. Okay. And so what's the difference between it and... Is there any difference between it and the imputation? Uh-huh. Yeah. No, you can't do that.

[80:38]

You've got to have it still in the pen. There has to still be some dependence, but a difference between the two. Yeah, but you have to have a... Yeah, the fantasy of that... What was the fantasy you had? That it was... I forgot what you said. Exists all by itself. Exists all by itself. No, you have to have some dependency so that you can establish that it is more self-existent than that which it depends on. Yeah, it's like Russian dolls, but still, I think you went too far. You went too far.

[81:39]

If it's already existing all by itself, you've gone too far in your analysis. You have to back... You overdid it. You have to back up one step and have it still... You have to have it still see some dependence on mental... But... Then... There's some dependence, but there's still a difference in reality between the mental imputation and it. It's more real... than the mental imputation. That's analyzing enough, but not too much. If what you say is what you see, your fantasy has gone too far. You overanalyzed. You have to back up one or one and a half steps. And so until you find this, you should not be analyzing. You should not be trying to refute this yet.

[82:42]

You haven't found it yet, I would say. So, you had a Russian doll, and you opened up and found nothing inside already. Or you found something that doesn't depend on anything. You went too far. I don't think so. I think I found... No, I don't think you did. There's no such thing. You couldn't have found that. You cannot depend on anything. You cannot find that. You're basically saying you found inherent existence. That's what you're saying. But you didn't. But your fantasy that you found it, okay, is not in what, you know, what is it?

[83:46]

You found this inherently existing thing that doesn't depend on anything. You have found something that can't be found, I'm saying to you. Yes. Now, this is kind of... See, everything, all these different things that people have found, that we've mentioned, all these things that people have found are things that they really can't find. They think they've found them, okay? But the thing you've found, which you can't find, we won't be able to refute. You went far enough, but you went too far, so now we're not telling me that you found something that doesn't depend on anything. That's exactly what it's about, is this thing which doesn't depend on anything.

[84:49]

But in order to find it, there still has to be some dependency in the neighborhood. You went too far. And these other ones, these other grosser versions where he didn't analyze enough, refuted, but they won't touch the most subtle one. So we want to find the most subtle one, but not go too far. And Berndt went too far by what he said. He found something that doesn't depend on anything. But the way you found it, I wouldn't know how to refute it. Because there's no place even to... Why that would even be... I just don't know how to relate to it. I don't know how to pin it down. That's why I say you went too far. The most subtle one that we actually hold is something that's associated with the five aggregates, pretty much the same, depends on mental imputation, but is still more existent than the mental imputation.

[85:57]

That's not necessarily the most subtle, but that is the one that we hold. And if you analyze that one step further, I think you're finding something which you also can't find, but which you don't hold. That's what I propose to you. I don't know if you're next, but probably not. Okay, all right. After you find this thing, then you need to convince yourself of two options if this thing inherently exists. You've actually found the view of inherent existence. Before you convince them of yourself? Before that, yeah. Yes.

[87:02]

Oh, yeah, part of it drops away. Right. No, but no, you still have the dependence. No, you don't go that far. You still see the dependence. But the funny thing is that that takes you to a more core level than just, like if you just see, okay, I got this thing and it is by itself, but it is associated with the five aggregates. It's pretty much the same as the five aggregates, but it still exists on its own. Now, that doesn't make sense, but just seeing that is not enough to self-destruct. This view is not that smart. It's powerful, but it isn't analyzing itself.

[88:07]

It's just going ahead and thinking, okay, there it is, and it's associated with the five aggregates. Before that, it said, well, there it is, and it's not associated with the five aggregates. We can think that, too. That's another false view. It's another ignorant view. But Stupid. We can say, okay, okay, fine. And drop it. Okay? Say, okay, I dropped it. Leave me alone. Okay. I'll leave you alone. Now what view do you have? Oh, I'm not going to tell you. Come on. Okay. Well, there's actually, there's another one. And that one is associated. No. Drop that one. Okay. Okay. Huh? Okay means I don't need that one. I got another one. I got another one up my sleeve, you know. I'm telling you dispensable ignorant views.

[89:07]

As long as I hold this final one, like Barron, you know, overdid it so he could hold his final one. He went beyond the final one so he could still hold the final one. So, I'm taking the overdoing one and putting him back to the final one. So, when you say, oh, no, okay, it is associated with 5A, I guess, that's not far enough. So, you're willing to drop that one because you don't need that one because you've got another one that's more subtle. Now, the one that's more subtle is, it depends on mental imputation. And you say, okay, I got that one. But still... it is independent. So this one depends on the five aggregates by being separate. This one depends on the five aggregates by being the same. This one depends on... It's like this little piggy went to market. This one depends on the five aggregates and mental imputation. But one more step.

[90:10]

It still is more self-sufficient than any of the five aggregates, plus it's more self-sufficient then there's still a feeling like this is the precious thing. Now that one is the one that you can't dispense with that one without becoming, you know, wise. There's other ones you can drop and still hold this core. Drop this one, you're not going to take the next level of subtlety and hold to that. And you're not going to back up to hold these other views. That one's going to undermine all of them. That's the point. That's the one that once you refute that, there'll be no recourse. But you can refute these other ones and still hold this basic one. There's a core one. If you hold that, you can generate endless other ridiculous ideas about what the permanent self is. If you refute this one, which is keyed into this fundamental factor of dependent arising, namely mental imputation.

[91:21]

You recognize it, but you still think something can stand up to mental imputation. Mental imputation is what makes everything dependent. But now you're recognizing that and still saying there's some independence of that. Now this is the one that you want to study and forget. If you forget that one, then all the other ones will drop away. That's the idea. Yeah? What's the difference between that one and what? In the previous cases, it's very gross to think that the self doesn't depend on any of the five aggregates.

[92:27]

That's very gross. I thought you were asking me what's the difference between those previous ones and the one where you recognize it's a mental imputation. The subtlest, you mean what I said was overdoing it? No. The first one, the grossest one is that you think that the self is independent and is different from the five aggregates, separate from them. or mostly separate from them. They're just very vaguely associated with them.

[93:13]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_88.11