Is there anybody who hasn't been to the earlier classes on this topic? You can maybe, if we get into using these handouts, you can maybe share with someone. I don't think I have more. Also, in case I forget to mention, we may, if people are interested, continue this study after, you know, next week we have Sashin and then maybe a few weeks after we could do a kind of more informal Monday evening study group on this topic for people who'd like to continue since we didn't really, we might not finish this chapter. No. Right. So this is the last of the series.

[01:03]

Yeah. Maybe I'll, for people who don't live here, especially who would like to, you know, without committing, if you're interested in coming, you could write your name and email or phone number or something. And we could do a series. And I was thinking a series. Possibly there's this book, Meditation on Emptiness. Actually, instead of Nagarjuna, there's a chapter in here on the selflessness of the person. And we could continue with that. It's one possibility. So, there's been a lot of... different things brought up over these weeks and on this meditation on self and not self, the section here are these steps that we did go over but we could have spent more time on, I think.

[02:14]

And I just wonder, particularly steps two and three, this meditation on self and not self, the first step is sit silently and brightly in the present. Not so much to say about that. This is maybe zazen practice as commonly taught. Various ways of sitting and settling. So then the second one is feel the sense of I extracting this small corner of concentration and identifying the sense by imagining being falsely accused or insulted or frightened or praised and so on. So particularly I'd be interested in hearing how people, if people were working with this at all, how, is that a difficult thing to identify and feel this sense of the self? Some people may be really difficult to find, some may be really easy to find it, but the one that you're finding may be like an imagined version of this kind of deep, subtle sense.

[03:28]

So that and then the third step of understanding how the I must exist. So this is the one that we talked about last week and people were having some difficulty understanding this point of that inherently existing I must be either identical to or completely unrelated, different and separate from the aggregates of body and mind. And so this point. And then also, because I think four of this is basically looking to see if the sense that you've identified in number two is identical to or completely unrelated and different from the body and mind. That's more straightforward and still a major step to kind of experientially go through each of these skandhas in these different ways. But particularly about, does anyone have any questions or experiences to report about the sense of the I or this point of how this I, inherently existing I, must be different or separate.

[04:43]

Yeah, Louie. Yes, I find that it's more effective for me if I actually just say I'm meditating. Uh-huh. And then when I try to kind of define or, like, kind of think about me in, like, being falsely accused or something, that I actually am not thinking about me. I'm thinking about some vision of me. Yeah, mm-hmm, mm-hmm. So it's not sure which one's the me I'm supposed to be. I think I know what you mean in this second version of when we imagine that scenario. It's like we're imagining looking down at the picture of somebody accusing, and then there's me over here in the picture, and oh yeah, that one got accused. I think in order to do that type of meditation, the imagination would be like not looking down on it as a scene, but actually imagine looking out to the eyes of you

[05:53]

at the person accusing you, for example, in one's imagination, or even, you know, you can even accuse yourself. You stupid idiot, how can you... Oh yeah, that works better. you think you're a meditator, look at you, just totally, totally just distracted all the time. And we do this probably naturally, right? It's awesome. So like, that's the, and you can, yeah, you can get into that and you can easily see the suffering in that too, right? That, that view of, of the you that's like, can't meditate. So very beneficial thing to just, you know, when you notice that voice that's already maybe going sometimes to just, then you can start investigating.

[06:54]

Okay, this one who can't meditate, this person who can never meditate, like who is this one? What's the sense of, it's like another step in a way to not just get into that story, but to say, well, now particularly the accused one, you know, the victim of the accusation, who is that one in terms of the felt sense, me, I, you know, and I think, like you say, it helps to say the word I, I can't meditate, and then, yeah, that sense that that one, and you can ask yourself, does that one seem like feel like it inherently exists. So you're not getting into all the content about like, what am I made up of and stuff, but just that first sense, almost like when you first say I, that immediate sense or feeling of the kind of contracted one who's kind of like, you know,

[08:09]

diminished and being squashed by this statement that we make. Or maybe not diminished, especially when being praised, right? It doesn't always have to be negative. that gets too, like, depressing or something, you can imagine, like, just saying, you are, like, the greatest meditator ever, you are so cool, and, uh, I mean, I, I, right, I am so cool, I am the greatest, and then, like, who is that, and really get into the feeling of it, and then, like, see how that one, too, is, um, is kind of, um, it's, uh, it's solidified, even though maybe expanded, it's not It's not very free. There's something, it's bound, even though it's like big and proud. It's kind of like when you start really feeling that one that's sort of taking the credit for anything good that I'm doing.

[09:18]

It's suffering. It's suffering, yeah, yeah. It's suffering. It's harder to see the suffering in that one, which is why it's maybe helpful generally to use the negative versions. because then we can see very clearly how that's suffering, and very clearly we can, by investigating, we can see how there's relief from the suffering to some extent, or to a great extent. Whereas the other one, it's more subtle, the praise part. We said last week that instead of saying, as you said right now, what is this inherently existing? so that the idea of the criticism of the praise wouldn't be dominant instead, investigating that sense of I, which you said was inherently existing, and you would ask yourself, what is this inherently existing? Did we say last week we could use the word independently existing?

[10:22]

Yeah. Because then you might be... sensing connection or lack of connection when you were saying that word. Yeah. Because inherently, I don't feel anything bigger in that word inherently. You can try it, yeah, independent. And also you said something about see how it exists inherently or something, but I think in this step it would be you're not really looking at how it exists independently or inherently, but you're just feeling the sense of whether or not it is, does seem, whether or not it seems to exist independently or inherently. And like, just to ask that simple question, does this sense, first you get the sense in mind of like, okay, me, I feel this sense of me. And now just ask, does this sense seem to, this would be a further question, does it seem to exist by way of its own character independently, inherently, in and of itself?

[11:26]

not dependent on anything. Does it seem to exist in that way? Or does it seem to be connected? And it might be like, well, no, it doesn't really seem so connected, that one. So that's this important step to become more and more familiar in different situations, maybe, too, with this sense, this... of the one that we know is actually an illusion, after hearing all this about it, but to actually tune in to the deep sense of the illusion, which I think is quite possible to do, especially in the difficult situations like being insulted and so on. When you said to ask that question about independent inner and inherently existing self, what is this, is that the next step when you go through these questions? Is that the kind of question you'll be asking, number four?

[12:29]

Well, first, once you get the sense of, okay, it really feels like this sense at this time feels like it's an inherently existent me at that time. And then, you know, it's also very elusive and quickly fleeting, and it's hard to, you can't really, like, hold it in view for very long, because it's, if you start looking at it to kind of grossly or directly, it kind of slips away because it's not, it's ungraspable. It's not actually, it's an illusion. So, but it can, so you're almost, when you're viewing it, you're kind of viewing it out of the corner of your mind, too, but also getting a kind of strong, vivid sense. So this is a very, it's hard to talk about, kind of experiential thing. And then, once you have determined, yeah, it really feels like If I had to say whether it feels like it exists in and of itself, or whether it's just another dependent co-arising, it actually feels at this moment like there's something here, there's some me here, some core of me-ness here.

[13:43]

So then we've identified, okay, it seems inherently existent. And then you would start doing this F4 of like, okay, this me that seems to be this way, Now we're going to see, is it... Well, first you do step three, and this is the other thing that people have questions about, this step three. If this one were to be inherently existent, like it really seems, then it would have to be either exactly identical to the body and mind, or completely separate and different and distinct from body and mind. Question? this to an experience I've had today. And I was sculling in the bay in the water as well. And I'm fully engaged. And my sense of self goes beyond.

[14:44]

Here includes both the orbs and the angle of the waves. And I'm very present. When I get out of that moment, then I see an eye. But when I'm in that moment, even though it's centered, there's no sense of eye. Yeah, I think there are sometimes wonderful times like this when actually that sense of self is virtually... well, it's not... if it is there on some deep level, it's not working. So it's just, and we live for these times, right, where we're just like merged with the flow of life. Yeah, it's actually called flow, like psychologically flow state. Yeah, uh-huh. Yeah, so flow is, and you know, and then there's different, now there's different schools of thought within Buddha Dharma about whether

[15:56]

at those moments of flow for an ordinary so-called unenlightened being, that actually this deep, innate sense of self is still just, it's just dormant. It's still just, it's just kind of like sleeping, and actually, but we're experiencing the flow as if it wasn't there at all, as if it was like Enlightenment actually in a way it's kind of is Kind of enlightenment, right? But then but the thing is because it's this dormant view that hasn't hasn't been investigated And refuted that then like you say that it ends and it's back again or in the middle of the flow somebody says like What do you think you're doing flowing like that? And you say who me and then it's it's back and So you could say, for example, this school of thought, this is Tsongkhapa commenting on this chapter of Nagarjuna, representing this school of thought, that it's still there.

[17:13]

He says, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but the other school of thought being that actually that is enlightenment. That's all there is to it. being in the flow like this, and there's not this innate, deeply hidden sense of self, but actually we create that sense of self when we leave the flow. What school is that? That would be maybe no specific school, but I think sometimes Zen teachings sound this way. I think that if Zen had to be characterized into one of those two, I would say Zen is kind of the second version, generally, I mean, you hear both versions in Zen, but basically, there's classic Zen sayings like, one moment of Zazen is one moment of Buddha. Zazen being when you're totally in the selfless flow, and then you stop being Buddha again. You're completely Buddha at that time.

[18:14]

The Tibetans would generally say that was heresy, probably. But so here's Sangkhapa's thing. He says, it does not make sense to maintain that one can achieve liberation from cyclic existence, samsara, by simply becoming accustomed to detaching one's mind from the self and from mine without understanding the way the self is grasped through self-grasping and the proper way to use stainless arguments to eliminate the grasped self. That is because although through that practice one does not engage with the object of self-grasping when we're in the flow, one does not engage with the object of selflessness or emptiness directly. Therefore that practice can never undermine self-grasping at all. So that's one point of view.

[19:15]

Yeah, it was complex. So basically the idea is through just basically disengaging temporarily from this sense of self in a kind of flow experience. Concentration? Yeah, it could happen in concentration or zazim, right? You just let go. I think the first class, we talked about these two kinds of practice. One is just letting go. Self-grasping comes up, we just let it go, but without investigating. This is the difference. Just let it go. And actually, we can maybe sometimes let it go. And then we're happy and free, and then it comes back again. Because it's a habit, and the view is still held. And they say sometimes, even if the view is not seen, it's accepted. I thought that was maybe a good way to put it. Even if we say we're not consciously holding the view, We say the view is accepted.

[20:19]

They also talk about this for animals, for example. Maybe we don't think of as holding a view of the inherently existent self. They would still say, well, animals accept this view, kind of blindly accept it. It's almost like by not investigating it, it's the normal status quo. If we agree with this statement that it's actually an innate view, And also, innate doesn't mean that it's an inherently existent view. Sometimes they use innate to mean inherently existent. But innate just means that in the cycle of many rebirths, that in this particular birth and every other one too, that in the stream of karmic cause and effect, that we're born with this karmic predicament of this view. But it's not like some fixed thing. that inherently existing thing, quite the contrary, it's easily refutable.

[21:21]

Being in this flow without understanding the way the Self is grasped, and the way to use these stainless arguments of Nagarjuna, for example, to eliminate the grasped Self, then it will just continue. It'll never end this cycle. So you would have to be in full commitment during the time I think. Commitment to? The life of the first one that you described. Commitment to investigation? Yeah. If you're in a state of commitment, when you experience that, that would be... It's more like... Also, this is not to say that we should ruin the flow experiences by starting to necessarily investigate in the flow, or doubt them.

[22:37]

It's mainly when the flow starts ending, that's the time to investigate. And also there's two schools of thought on actually kind of this point, like during the flow and particularly in meditation. For example, to continue this paragraph of Tsangkhapa, remember there's these three kinds of meditation, I mean three kinds of wisdom, the wisdom from hearing or studying the Dharma, just understanding what the words say, then the wisdom from reflecting on, kind of investigating in a conceptual way these teachings, a deeper kind of wisdom. And then the third is this being kind of wisdom, we could call it the flow, where you actually become one with the understanding. Through the second one of reflection, you become completely convinced, you develop strong conviction in no inherently existent self, for example.

[23:42]

and then you actually experientially become that teaching through deep meditation, would be the third. So these are these three types of wisdom. So Sankhapa talks about this and says, nor should it be said that although it's necessary to develop this view, the correct view, at the stage of hearing and contemplation or reflection, so in these first two kinds of wisdom, Everyone would agree that you have to develop the correct view at the stage of hearing and reflection. But it should not be said that it's necessary, that it should not be said that it's not necessary at the stage of meditation or the third type of wisdom. Can you follow that? In other words, he says that you have to, even at the stage of this experiential, deep, meditation practice, you have to still keep the view in mind, a kind of a version of the, through reasoning, of the view of emptiness as kind of an object of meditation.

[24:52]

Emptiness is an object of meditation. This is Sankapa's thing. Let me just finish the other story of this, the other version, which I didn't bring with me, but I just read this evening, This other version that's saying, strongly criticizing this, and actually different schools of Tibetan lineages actually debate this point. And the other version is still, during hearing or studying and reflecting, you use these reasonings to determine and gain strong conviction in the view. But during meditation, this other school says, stop the reasoning. During the meditation, you've developed the conviction, you have to develop the strong conviction, like, I know that the self cannot inherently exist. I'm completely convinced in a conceptual way. And then you bring that conviction into just, they sometimes say, rest in the conviction, is what the meditation is.

[25:58]

Kind of just relax in this total, doubtless, confidence that it must be this way, but conviction is not necessarily conceptual. It's just like assurance with this very energetic meditation because there's no doubt. And they even say to then bring up, to go back into the reasoning at this time of meditation, it's just like a distraction. You've gained the confidence and the conviction, so don't keep checking it out again. Don't keep going over the reasonings at that time. So that's the other view. And again, maybe that would be more like the Zen view. Like, you know, you read the Shobogenzo and you just like, yeah, right on. And then you go to Zazen and you forget the Shobogenzo. You keep going, what did Dogen say again? How did he say that? But something you've changed. Each of these three wisdoms actually change your mind.

[27:02]

So your mind has been changed through the first two. So you bring this changed mind into meditation. And you know, you do kind of revert back of like, which is an interesting and very subtle point. And you can experiment yourself with these two different approaches in meditation. And see like, am I actually, am I, maybe this is a little bit like, maybe something Catherine was talking about of like, are you, once you're like, kind of like, are you, maybe we're like convinced at this point, like, Like, we were convinced at this point a while ago. Do we have to keep going over this? Or do we have to use all these kind of quirky reasonings if we're already convinced? So this is a question. Are we already convinced? And also, I think in a conversation that we had, you were questioning whether we have this innate view, actually. Do we really... believe that there's this innate view of the inherently existent self, or maybe we're actually, it wasn't that strong a thing, and we refuted it a while ago, and we really don't believe it, even though it continues to come up.

[28:10]

And I was thinking afterwards that one response would be, someone who feels that way maybe has completed the first two stages of wisdom, you could say. They've actually done the reflection, and they're convinced in a conceptual way And then you could say they may or may not have done the third level, which would be like to have this direct experiential confirmation of no self. Alayna. or misunderstanding during a state of flow, then that state could be just a state. The state of flow.

[29:12]

Yes. Just a state. Maybe not insight. Maybe, for example, shamatha, deep stillness in meditation. Sometimes meditation has two aspects, shamatha and vipassana. So the still, calm, concentrated, very blissful sometimes, kind of flow-like mind state, when we just let go of discursive thinking for a while. And that might seem like that's the insight into no self, but maybe there hasn't been any investigation into it. And then later you may want to go back and have the same experience, because there was no understanding. Yeah. then that could become an obstacle. Right, right. In fact, that could even be a clue that we haven't clarified the understanding. If when we leave the flow and we think, now I want to get back to that flow, for me to experience it, it's already like something's off there already.

[30:23]

And that's again the beauty of that. You can see then that this insight... how wonderful it is compared to shamatha, because even when you leave the flow, well, it's just, so? There's no, it's more flow to leave the flow, you know, the flow. The view of emptiness, of the inherently existent self, because then it's like everything is equal then, right? Everything is one taste of no inherently existent self, whether we're deep, calm meditation, or if it's really clearly experiencing the non-inherently existent self, then even when being attacked, we might be able to actually receive the attack as ambrosia. Even though we might feel the adrenaline and all this, like we were talking about last week,

[31:28]

still might be like, wow, this is amazing that this whole thing is happening without a self in here, really. The conventional self is arising and there's conventional adrenaline flowing and all that stuff. So again, I think to taste the one taste of no inherently existing self in these kind of dynamic un-calmed situations is maybe more wonderful and more helpful and more, as you can imagine, more pertinent to one's whole life and complete liberation in any situation. Than to be on the bay in a, you know... Yeah, not that that one's worse at all either, but that that's, you know, they're all equal. It doesn't free you? Well, I guess the problem would be like if we're depending on the calm shamatha state or the kayaking or whatever it is, some particular experience, if we're depending and relying on that for the liberation, then it's limited, right?

[32:48]

And it's in one thing and not another, so all these things are clues that it's not complete. The insight's not... It happens when I'm either liking something a lot or getting it to some kind of self-centered thing. I can laugh about it. I can say, oh, look what I've done. And the sense of self is there, but it's not so strong. Mm-hmm. So I can sort of objectify it. You see that it's happening like that. Yeah, it's happening. Oh, look, it's happening again. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I think this is, I think that's a good point, too, of like when meditating on this stuff at whatever level we're doing it, to stay lighthearted about it. Because actually the realm of no self is like, it's not taking one's self too seriously.

[33:51]

Mm-hmm. That's what it is, right? So if we're getting too serious about it, or like, oh, I lost it again, I can't believe it, you know, already, that's it right there, right? So somehow, you know, it can go too far into like, thinking life is but a joke, you know? So it's just not being caught by seriousness or or unseriousness, or anything, being caught by being caught. And quite wonderfully, you know, life, whatever life we have, is going to help us with this stuff all the time, because we're not in control of it, and the stuff's going to keep happening, good and bad. And things in accord with our preferences and out of accord with our preferences, it's just going to keep happening that way.

[34:51]

So it's all just like opportunity for this particular practice. I want to push a point here. Yeah. You said that the view of inherent self is innate. I'd like to say that it's not innate, independently koteric. Both. That's what I was trying to say, actually, is that actually innate, I'm saying by innate, doesn't mean inherently existent. The view is not inherently existent. The view is of something that seems to be inherently existent, but the view itself is dependently co-arisen. Yeah, past lives are also dependently co-arisen, and karma is dependently co-arisen, and this view is this karmically conditioned arising. And so innate is maybe maybe that word is can be confusing because sometimes Yeah, so maybe that was part of this point is that it's not like It's innate in some kind of like essentialized fixed kind of way.

[35:55]

It just means that like and Maybe part of this part of when they say it's innate is with the view in mind of rebirth the conventional view of rebirth That's actually it just means in our past life, our path life, the path life that conditioned this life, that view was held, and then so that's part of the karmic situation. Can you have rebirth without a self? Remember Sati, the son of a fisherman, was about this point, right? He said, as I understand the Buddha, it's consciousness that's reborn from life to life and experiences everything. And the Buddha said, not so. It's actually just what we call rebirth is just dependent co-arising. This is a whole other topic of rebirth. But yeah, there can be rebirth without a self. Just this arises, this ceases, this is a condition for this arising, this ceases, a condition for this arising, it ceases just in this life.

[37:04]

And then The body dies, and there's a ceasing of the five skandhas, which is a condition for the arising of another five skandhas, this time in this big kind of shift into a new body, but no self, just arising and ceasing. Yeah, I think, yeah, it's true. Okay, yeah, and actually change even is a little bit off. Nothing changes into anything else. Buddha was pretty clear about saying just arising and ceasing. Actually, I kind of like the innate made me think of different things, but there are things that are innate. In other words, nobody would argue that human beings innately need to drink water. Yeah, all right. Okay, yeah, I like that. But innate, but that's because of time. In a way, you could just say that karma, if you're born as a human being, then everyone's got this. That's what innate is. That's not karma. Drink and eating water.

[38:07]

Yeah, yeah. No, I think that is karma. Well, let's say it's dependent co-arising. Yeah, well, that's... Which is a little different than karma. Karma is intentional. Yeah. They're related, but slightly different. No, karma is a lot more than that. Wouldn't it be karma that would bring the whatever gets passed on through life into a human body? That would be karma. Right. So that is... That karma makes... You dependently co-arize as a human, and thereby you can't harm. Exactly. You cannot be a human being without karma. Right, right. That's the level. And at any rate, the view seems to be related to karma. This false view of the inherently existent self does seem to be connected to... Karma arises from this view, actually, and then karma continues to maintain the view... Again, the language is a little off because it's not some thing that's maintained, but each moment of the view ceases, but that strong moment of view is a condition for the next moment of the view.

[39:14]

So along with the consciousness that die, the consciousness and the fourth skanda that holds all these different personality traits, It's just, it ceases, every moment actually ceases, but then that's a condition for the next moment of all five skandhas. You know, what we call death of the person, the form skanda dies, and exactly what happens with these other mental skandhas, there's different stories, right? But basically, they all agree that there's a ceasing and the cessation of These skandhas is a condition for the arising of another set of skandhas. And there's a kind of a, you know, it's not like this particular person is reborn, but there's kind of a lineage of, or a continuum is the word they sometimes use, a continuum.

[40:16]

Not a substantial continuum, but conventionally speaking, this kind of particular pattern of arising and ceasing. and then is reborn, not reborn. Again, I think it's true that the Buddha just says birth. He doesn't say reborn. The whole notion of reincarnation almost swims back upstream with this material on no independence. It just sort of... But actually is in a cooler, and I think if we do away with that, then the no-self can start to sound nihilistic, and like there's really no-self and no-nothing. But this is the wonderful part, this is the conventional, dependently co-arisen body and mind arising and ceasing, born and dying, is not contradictory with the fact that there's no inherent existence.

[41:18]

in this process. Well, I actually was going to ask a question about this before, because I do feel like this is kind of a sticking point for me in understanding the self, or the lack of a self, both in terms of rebirth, and I'm thinking now of maybe like the reincarnated llamas in Tibet, and kind of, you know, little kids are naming them. Yeah, yeah. So how do memories get passed on? Because I would imagine that memories would be considered maybe a part of consciousness. It seems like wherever memories exist when there's no... Or the fourth skanda, you could say, and possibly the third of conception or identification, the combination of the five skandhas, right? So it's not like the memory is being passed along, but there's this collection of five skandhas that includes what we call memory, that as it ceases, conditions another set of skandhas, even right now this is happening, right? Mm-hmm. That's why, and it looks like there's me with a memory of that, but it's just conditioned by the previous one.

[42:21]

You could say, well, exactly how this happens when the body dies, there's different stories, but it's just conditionality, though, right? Just ceasing and then arising. And the arising is not random. It's conditioned by the previous. So it could explain how someone could possibly remember... something from just like we remember yesterday. I guess my understanding, maybe I'm still stuck in the idea that our memories are actually like physical part of our physical memory. Yeah, no, no, no. Right, that's the kind of physical view. This is all like the mental skandhas hold memory. And again, it's tricky how to talk. You say the whole memory is a little off. It's hard to talk about it. Instead of using a human, I'm going to use another analogy because it's... A pea plant, a legume, has a nodule in the root.

[43:30]

And the nodule is bacteria. And it produces nitrogen. And it's part of the pea plant, but it's not. It's kind of like having a satellite DNA in your cell, but it's not when So if our body is symbiotic, we have millions and billions of other cells that are a part of what we do besides things that we find as our body, but they're integrated into the existence. That's kind of a physical thing you're talking about.

[44:31]

So physical is also rising and ceasing, but then there's, you know, in this plant example, it's not really mental, and plants don't have karma, for example. But the physical, Well, that's another discussion, right? But it involves intention. Karma is, actually. That's the definition of karma, is intention. Anyway, so without getting too sidetracked into this rebirth discussion, which is related to self, of course, what about any other experiences of trying to find and not being able to find the sense? Yeah. I find the one that's the most, perhaps it's the most subtle, but identical to constantly rising and ceasing awareness of what is happening. That sense of awareness seems to be identical with self.

[45:35]

I've heard from other practitioners that that's a mistake. Yeah, we talked about this last week. Oh, you did? I was here. Yeah, the fifth skanda, maybe the week before too, that the fifth skanda of consciousness, or could be called awareness, is the most likely thing to attribute a self to, actually. An experience, you actually experience it as yourself. Yeah, but we can tell it's not a self, because when you investigate consciousness, or you understand at least the story about it, is that it arises dependent on... an object, for example. There's always awareness of an object. And in consciousness, the skandhas are all arising and ceasing. It seems like a stream of awareness. It's not really a stream. It's, again, just arising and ceasing. But it seems like awareness.

[46:35]

You have this meditation that you sometimes hear, that you have a spacious awareness, and then your sensations, your breath, your feelings, your moods, all of it just passes through, which I think is arising and ceasing, but then you have this awareness through which everything just passes on by. That may be just the fifth skanda. Yeah, and sometimes we identify that as... You have something coming through the sky, and what you're saying now is that, that sense of spaciousness, you have to have something in that space. I think I've had a sense that there wasn't anything in the space. But you think it always has to be something. Well, you just said there are all these things like feelings and colors. Yes, but sometimes there doesn't seem to be much. Well, if there's some deep meditation state where there's actually no, like an objectless kind of meditation state, there are other realms of mind that aren't the five skandhas, actually.

[47:37]

It seems like there's still duality in that there's this spaciousness. Right. As long as there's duality, it's the fifth skanda. But there could be a non-dual... By meditating on the spaciousness, that's how you can separate... That would be part of it, yeah. See if there's any sense of somebody here meditating on spaciousness. As soon as you're doing that, there is. There is, yeah. But you could say before doing that, then maybe there are these non-dual wisdom realms... Like the Dzogchen people say Rigpa. It's not the fifth Skanda. Although it looks very similar to the fifth Skanda. So this is where you have to... And it's an easy trap to just be like meditating on the consciousness Skanda and feel that that's this non-dual awareness. Close. They're very close. Very subtle. Now how about this part about it's identical or different?

[48:40]

that people were having a hard time, did everybody clarify it over the week? Let's just say we did. If something inherently exists, and we're taking an object and its parts, if the self, and some people didn't like using the yurt, I think. You like the yurt? Well... take the table. If the table were to inherently exist, it must be identical to its parts or completely separate from its parts. And we said it's easier to see this maybe by using the word independent. If the table were to exist independently, in other words, not depending on anything, it means it must be the same as its parts or different than its parts because any other alternative than Complete identity or complete difference would be dependent.

[49:42]

Follow? If the table is independent, if it's completely separate from its parts, that's okay with being independent, right? Completely unrelated, independent of its parts, right? If it were to be independent, it could be completely separate and independent from its parts. Or it could be this other... possibility of being completely identical, in which case it's also independent. It means if it's identical, it's exactly the same, meaning it's not dependent on because they're the same. Exactly. Wait, he's got a question. I was just going to say, I actually think it was kind of stuck on this, but I feel like I had an understanding with the yurt, actually, in that I just felt like I had to mentally go through, and is it Jeffrey Hopkins? His book that I was reading He goes through it very specifically with this chariot and car example. It's a very specific part. I had to go through mentally and take each part inside, whether that was yurt or not yurt.

[50:49]

What would you do with the table? Is that leg table or not table? This would be kind of like the next step after deciding whether it must be the same or different. Then you start investigating in that way. I felt like that was easier for me to understand that for some reason because I'm going through each part by each part and deciding that each part was not the whole, then you realize there's no table left after you take it. If you decide that every single part isn't table, then how can every part just put together be table? Right. Because you've already decided that every single one is not table. Or another way to say this thing, I mean, they put it in this language, and I think it's helpful to say it this way, but another way to say the opposite, instead of saying if the table were to inherently exist, it would have to be identical or separate from its parts, you could put it the opposite. You could say if the table were to be dependent, not independent, but if the table were to be dependent in relation to its parts, it could not be separate from its parts, right?

[51:50]

And it could not be identical. If it were identical, it wouldn't be dependent on it. So, does that make more sense? If the table were to be dependent, which actually is the case, then the way dependent things are, dependently co-arisen things, they're not completely separate from other things, and they're not completely identical to other things. Completely identical and completely separate are two extreme views. In this case, these two extremes. And the middle, which is why this is called the middle way, is free of the extremes of complete identity and complete separate. But this is not just a kind of weird idea. It might be pretty easy to see. It's maybe just the way you're thinking about it. independent, not dependent.

[52:52]

You can maybe see this side easier, that if it's independent, it could be completely separate. Isn't that what independent means? If we're looking at independent of its parts, it would mean completely separate from its parts. Can you see that side of it? The other side may be harder to see that if it were independent, it could be completely identical. Is anyone having trouble with that part? Only to that itself. Yeah, identical to itself. It means like, because it's exactly the same, it's not dependent on. Now, you could have a thing where, like, it's in this, if, for example, if the parts are in the table, then it's dependent again. That's not identity. In is not identity. But identity means exactly the same. So it's kind of a weird thing. Well, why would we even think that way? but it's just covering the basis of the two extremes. Completely separate or completely identical would be the only way an inherently existent thing could exist.

[54:00]

Well, we talk about ourselves in both ways. Well, like all of me, like if he hits my knee, I say he hit me. Or he hit my knee. And that would be thinking of my knee as not separate from me. Well, actually, I would say that's the view of, and according to this thing, they would say that's the view of the self that has a knee, which is actually... If I say my knee, but what if I say he hit me? Oh, if you say he hit me? Yeah. Then what's that? Yeah, right, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, if me is the body and mind. Yeah, that's a view of identity. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. That's the point. Got that? Yes.

[55:01]

Yeah, the same... Yeah. This collection of parts, whether we're just thinking of the body or the body and mind, all skandhas, is me. Okay? That would be the... Yes, that would be the other extreme. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The two extremes are identity and difference. Yes, or I, and there's different versions of the, you know, being completely separate. And that's what, just maybe without going into, but if you want to study on your own, at the bottom of number four, first it goes to, you know, identical to each of the five skandhas, and then in parentheses, identical to the combination of all five. Then it says the eye that would be completely unrelated, different, and separate.

[56:06]

And then it says the eye that is the base of the five skandhas, or the five skandhas are in the eye, as I've mentioned, and then in parentheses, if so, it would be separate. That would be the view of separate, like you just said. And then another one would be based on, that the eye is based on the five aggregates, or that the eye is in the body and mind. One view would be the body and mind is in the eye, and one is the eye is in body and mind. You could say, well, who's coming up with all these views? But actually, these are really neat because we do really think this way. I think even more commonly we think this way than the other two versions of completely identical and completely different. And when I first heard this thing of identical and different, I thought, well, no, it actually doesn't seem like that. It seems more like there's an eye that is kind of in the body and mind. And then you see that, oh, actually that falls into one of these views also. It falls into the view of the I that's in is also separate.

[57:09]

It's additional too. Yeah. And the analogies they use for these two of this one being in this one and this one being in this one, or like the I being in the body and mind is like a deer in the forest. The deer is not the same as the forest, right? Deer is a different thing than the forest. And then the metaphor, that's actually a good metaphor because it's harder to get this one, of the body and mind being in the eye, like there's this self that contains body and mind, right? And say, well, how can you see that that's different? It's like a forest in snow. Say it again? A forest in snow is a metaphor for the view of... the body and mind being in the eye. The snow that completely permeates all the trees of the forest is like the eye that kind of permeates the body and mind, covers the body and mind, that the forest is in the snow.

[58:19]

That sounds great. And so does the way about the deer in the forest. But this is just to show how it's a view of that the forest and the snow are separate. a view of separateness. So what's one that's identical? The view of identical? Identical would be just the one basic view of identical is just that, yeah, like Catherine said, this is me, this collection of body and mind is me. And virtually all the other permutations fall into this other, except for possessing, the last one on this is possessing, the I possesses the five aggregates, owner of them. And it says, if so, it would be identical to or separate from them. Because there's two different versions in this one. These philosophers really looked at this carefully, right? So it might seem possession, mostly we might think, well, it's different, right? My leg is different, but actually... Yeah, and they say the two examples here is like a person who owns a cow.

[59:25]

That's the separate one, like me and the leg. But then there's also the view of like the person who has a nose is actually like, it's the same. This is a view of sameness in terms of, and you might say, well, I don't know about that. But that would be an ownership view where actually the nose is not separate. You could see it as inherently the same. Like the table possesses its leg. you might see that that possession, you could see possession in terms of either of these two extremes. If there really is a table, inherently existing table, and it possessed its leg, it could possess it in the way that a person possesses a cow, or it could possess it in the way that a person possesses their nose. But either one would be wrong. No, they're two different, they're opposite views, actually.

[60:28]

The opposite extreme views, interestingly. Yeah, you have to really, like, think about, do the reflection type of wisdom on this stuff for a while. But you see, I think it's brilliant the way that they came up with this stuff. Because it really, it's covering all the bases, basically. Emmanuel had something first? No. Did you, Emmanuel? No, I did not. Okay, I do. I do. So if I play with this with memory, And I could say, I have memory. I have memory. Or I could say, I am memory. That's this possession thing. And so that's, for me, an example of how I could go both directions. Well, when you say, I am memory, is just the first example of identical two. And when you say, I have memory, then it can fall into either one of the two views. So two things occur to me.

[61:30]

One of them is that that's now the current place that I... Identify as self? Yeah, identify as a self. And in a way, I haven't fully examined it, but it strikes me that in brain science, I mean, my memory, or even in some disability, my memory can be destroyed. Mm-hmm. And it does occur to me that if I let myself fantasize that there is no memory, there's only a rising and ceasing. Only. Well, it could be a rising and ceasing memory. Well, no, I'm letting myself fantasize no memory. Okay. Okay. So I'm going only a rising and ceasing. There's no self there. Yeah, but there is actually... conventional memory but this point is reminding me there is conventional memory yeah like that movie Memento I don't know if people saw that it's kind of about this point it's like somebody kind of and it's like really disturbing because it's kind of like he's got no self but he does have a kind of temporary self for like a few minutes at a time then he sees a person he has it's like short-term memory in terms of like a few minutes

[62:56]

It's not in memory, truly, truly. Not short term, not long term, gone. What? I can do that in my fantasy. I can do it in a fantasy and it's gone. I think I see what you're saying is that if you're really invested in memory as a sense of who I am, that just to play with giving that up does feel like letting go of a self. It does. Yeah, I think so. If I stick my hand up and you call on me, this me business, it's really very lovely to think about what response. It's just a dependently co-arisen response. Yeah, if there's no memory, then that's this spontaneity thing, too. Because memory isn't really a problem, but it can be if we, like, oh, you know, maybe we hold a grudge against someone because we remembered something. But if you meet somebody totally fresh in the moment, like, I've never, you don't have any history, you know, then it's like, how wonderful.

[64:02]

You say, actually, one would say, in my imagination, one would say very little. There would be this thing I heard. called appropriate response. Yeah. There would be this thing I've heard called dropping off. Yeah, yeah. But also I don't think we don't have to obliterate memory. We just have to not believe it as a self. It's a beautiful gift to have memory too, right? Not believe it as a self. Yeah, not believe memory is myself. To not be fooled. Yeah. Now before we get, this has been good for getting like, but you know, we've got to Gets in the garden end. And also, a lot of these questions are actually, especially about memory, in this first verse is interesting. They come up, actually. And this point about identity and difference is all about the first verse. So let's, one more time with this first verse. If the self, meaning the inherently existing self, were identical with the aggregates of body and mind, skandhas,

[65:07]

So this is saying we've just done this step before this of determining that the inherently existent self would have to be identical or different. So after determining that, which if you haven't determined it yet, you can do this afterwards, but it must be one of these ways. Now this is the proof. This is the reasoning now. Having determined that, this is the reasoning that's going to prove the absence, the emptiness of inherent existence. So if you haven't done that setup first, that it must be one or the other, it's not going to be so strong. So he's assuming that you've done that. And so if the inherently existing self were to be identical with the body and mind, we talked about, that would be one way. Aggregates? Yeah, aggregates are about the same as body and mind. It would have to arise and cease. So saying, We're saying if the inherently existent self were to be the same as this, that would be one possibility. But if it were, now there's this problem.

[66:09]

If the inherently existent self were to be the same as, then the self would have to arise and cease. It would have to be born and die. Yeah. And by definition, something inherently existent usually doesn't arise and cease. Now, the self would have to arise and cease every moment. because that's what the Skandas do. So partly it would... And Henry asked something about this last time, about saying, well, couldn't an inherently existent thing arise and cease? I think you asked. You might not remember this, but I do. Yeah, no, no, no. Well, I asked something slightly different. Because I think this was an important point. And I was saying, well, I was trying to sort of defend that actually... No, it can't because arising and ceasing depends on things. But they do cover this view that maybe you could have an inherently arising thing or an inherently ceasing thing. But the thing is that each arising and ceasing self would be distinct by way of its own character.

[67:17]

If the self were to be the same as the arising mind, for example, then that arising and ceasing mind would not... be dependent on the previous one, and the following one would not depend on it, so they would be distinct. Therefore, there could be no memory. Right? So this is kind of like, that's part of the thing, is if there's memory, you can't have these distinct, that memory depends on a previous, the arisen, let's see, if there's memory in the present body and mind, it depends on a previous body and mind that's remembering some event from the previous one, so there's a dependent relationship. But if there were an inherently existing arising and ceasing, it would cease by way of its own character, and there would be no... it would just cease, and that would be the end, obliteration of that body and mind.

[68:19]

And you could have another self arise and cease, and then another self, but they would be independent. you know, and that way you couldn't, there'd be no connection or memory of the previous ones. Is that how it is? No, that's like, it can't be this way, so, yeah. Stephen Batchelor, do you want to read it? Sure, of that verse. Very helpful. Were mind and matter me, I would come and go like them. If I were something else, they would say nothing about me. Yeah, yeah, okay, yeah. So, and this is the second one, um, If the separate one, but they would say nothing is me, this would be the... Well, first let me finish the... If the self were identical to the body and mind, it would have to rise and cease. This is basically what Nagarjuna says. And if there were... And each arising and ceasing would be distinct by way of its own character. So this doesn't make sense. And since... Also, here's another argument that...

[69:24]

that proves that this is impossible, since there are several or multiple skandhas, there would have to be multiple selves. If the self were the same as the skandhas, there's five skandhas, so there would be five selves. Or if you say, well, let's not say five skandhas, let's just say, like, the body, or the body has these multiple parts, so the self would have to have multiple parts, and then it would depend on its parts again, and it wouldn't be this independent core of selfness. So these are just, you know, philosophical type of arguments. Also, self would be just a synonym for the skandhas. If it were the same, they would be synonymous. So that when we say that the body grasps the self, or that the mind grasps the self, that's like a grasper and a grasped. And if there's synonyms, you can't have, that would be agent and action would be identical. So that would be impossible too. We went very fast through these reasonings.

[70:27]

You see, this is the kind of reasonings. If the self were the same as body and mind, these are the proofs that it couldn't exist in that way. So you say, okay, okay, okay, I give up. The self can't be the same as the body and mind. Philosophically, we can prove it can't. So then we jump to the other possibility. If it's inherently existent and it's not the same, then it must be different. So then we start to go into the arguments, the proof. Different doesn't work. That's what I said you asked last week. But no, the inherently existing self that we get this view of feels like something that doesn't arise and cease. But even if we said that, well, maybe you could have an inherently existent, arising and ceasing self, we're talking about the inherently existing self, independently existing, that one doesn't seem to arise and cease.

[71:30]

It doesn't seem to. But if it were to be kind of somehow independently arising and ceasing, it would arise and cease independently. And so when it ceased, it would not be a condition for another... arising. So that self would be like gone, gone, gone, never, no connection. But it wouldn't be gone anyway, because it can't, anything independently... How could it arise, you might ask? It's stuck. Yeah, it's stuck. That goes back to the first chapter of the middle A, right? They're all, they're all connected, they're all independently co-rism. Yeah, they all are saying similar things in different ways. I think Henry said, maybe I misunderstood I'm very tired. If the arising and ceasing self isn't the one that's being refuted. So why didn't he say the inherent self? What did he just say? That's what we have to, well, you have to assume what we're talking about here in these five types of self.

[72:32]

It's definitely talking about the inherently existent self. And you could say, yeah, there's various reasons why he might not explicitly, basically because the whole book is about inherent existence. So whenever he says... When things exist, he also means inherently exist, not dependently exist. It's also stylistically very good. Yeah, and it's kind of, he uses the term Atman. There's a parenthesis here, Atma, which means inherently existing self, as a technical term. It's like the stylistic thing for me in reading this is that it tangles my mind up. Really, like tolans do, in an excruciating way that then sort of pops. Yeah. As he delivers you a being. Yeah, yeah. I think the struggle is important. Right. And going through the reasonings. Yeah. So if the self were different from the body and mind, it would not have, as he says, it would not have the characteristics of the body and mind.

[73:35]

Or as Rayran said, what was the second part of that Stephen Batchelor one? Something like it doesn't... It's not... If there were something else, they would say nothing about me. Yeah, they would say nothing about me. Meaning it's like there's no connection at all. If they were completely separate, if the self was completely separate, the main thing is that when we have this sense of the self, it's like the skandhas are what has the sense of the self. So the skandhas know the self. But if we're to be completely independent of the body and mind, We couldn't know, we couldn't experience the self at all. There'd be no way, we couldn't say anything about it. It'd be completely inexperienceable, which is not the case, right? So, it would not have the... More, in fact, they do say that, because they say, actually, it is kind of inconceivable, and sometimes we might say, we can't actually get a hold of the self. Some people would say there is this kind of cosmic self that we can't,

[74:36]

is incommunicable, but it's more than that. We couldn't even have, we'd have no experience in any way of it if it were completely independent. Because as soon as there's an experience of it, then it's dependent relationship. Then we're dependent on that sense, on the self. So independent is like completely like there's no connection. It means inherently separate, right? Separate by way of its own character. The question I asked last week was a little bit different. I said, Why couldn't we have an inherently existent self that can be affected by things? Yeah, again, if we're using the word independent, if we're using independent for inherent, independent. It's a little bit same. Same. They're synonyms. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. These help to clarify. It's a little bit on the circular side, so if it's completely independent. Then it can't depend on anything. It can't depend on anything. Exactly. Yeah. So that's what, yeah, you have to take these as synonyms. And maybe it may be easier to understand the word independent than inherent.

[75:40]

Independent and inherent, it's two different things though. I can imagine something that's inherently existing. In other words, see this was the point I was going to go on, I'll go into the point now. And that is, the illusion is that things inherently exist. By way of their own character. By way of their own character. I believe that that table exists independent of me. And so... You just said it, independent. You used it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no, no. That's fine. Okay. I won't go on. You're saying that they're different. That inherent and independent might be slightly different. If you admit what I'm trying to say, you can't hear what I'm saying. So I can't... You want to try? Well, no, no. It's too hard. Because this is happening exactly last week also. Because I tried to say something and it's like... If you make it circular, then there's no way to talk about a circular argument. So if it's circular, that's why I was trying to say, well, either it's a circular argument, then it's a postulate, or we can talk about it, and therefore it's provable.

[76:49]

And that's what I was trying to get at last week. So I don't know if I could bring this up in the context of the framework of this class. What I'm trying to say is we have this illusion and I don't want to talk about the illusion. I don't want to talk about my vision. In other words, I'm arguing not as a Buddhist, but just as someone in the room. What are you guys talking about? You're saying if things inherently existed. Yeah. So the point is we all have this illusion. We have this illusion very strongly. As a matter of fact, no matter what we think, We're going to walk out of this room and that illusion is going to come right up. We're going to think that's my car. It's going to be right there. Can you recognize it as an illusion or as something happening in the mind? I think that's the place where we have to get to. It arises, but we have to see it as an illusion. But I'm not actually at that place. I'm saying, well, come on, prove it to me. And that's what I was like a challenge.

[77:53]

to say, well, I can imagine that that thing actually exists, you know, and yet I can affect it, but I'll still walk away, and it's still there, and it was there before I walked in the room. Oh, I think I see what you're saying. I take a knife and put a knife on it. Yeah, but you still feel like it inherently exists. Yeah, it inherently exists, even though I can verify it. I see what you mean. Yeah, so it's like, that would be an example, I think, of how the view is like totally wacky. Our false view is like, We think that it inherently exists, but then we do affect it. So already that's contradictory. We feel like it really inherently exists, and yet we're independent with it, and we do think, we change it and stuff. So at the time we're doing that, we're kind of forgetting our false view. Well, doesn't it, even though the fact that I can actually carve in it, make it feel like it independently exists, even though I can affect it, in other words, I can hit it, I can do also, look at this, I can, boy, this really feels like it exists.

[78:56]

And the fact that I can interact with it, the fact that I can do something to it, even makes it more strongly that it, even the fact that I can hammer a nail into it makes me feel like it's really there. The fact that I can actually do something to it, it's even more there. Yeah, you mean inherent, like it's like kind of solidly here. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But then, but then again, that would be your very action with it to kind of feel like you're proving that it's there could be what's actually proving that it's independent and not inherently existing by the very fact that you're interacting. But we don't think that way. That it's interdependent. Yeah, that it's interdependent. So I think this is a great example though. We do live this way where we feel like things really exist and yet we're interdependently interacting with them. Until we do this investigation. we relate to things as if they were independent and yet we're completely interdependent with them at the same time.

[79:57]

That would be another way of saying what I think you're saying. Well, see, I don't see a contradiction. But is the table dependent on you seeing it for it to be a table? Wouldn't that be a dependent relationship? Well, that's the point. I fully believe the table is there even when I walk out of the room and don't see it. I believe that that table existed before I ever came to believe it. Yeah, yeah. But that belief has no... No, experiential validity. It's just an idea. But we do think this way. Yeah, we think when we leave the room that the table will still be here. I don't want to do the same thing. I want to really grapple with my delusion. I really want to see. Yeah, that's a great example. We think when we leave the room that the table will still be there, independent of us. We really feel that's true. This particular table that you're experiencing depends on your mind.

[81:00]

And that's the only one we can relate to, is the one we experience. Otherwise it's just an idea. It's just a concept of something. Yeah. So, you know, we're almost out of time. But the second verse is basically... So basically the first one, the first one... Slow down. So the first one is like, basically you can see how this is... This was Sangha's enlightenment, right? That he saw... If it were this way, it would have to rise and cease. If it were this way, it couldn't be. So it can't be these extremes. Therefore, it's just dependently co-arisen. Now, if there's no self, inherently existent self, in the second verse, how could there be something that belongs to the self?

[82:01]

From the pacification of the self and what belongs to it, there's no more creating I and mine. So, this is kind of obvious, right? If there's no inherently existent self, then there can't be my table and car and body and... It can't be I and mine. So some people would say, well, this includes not only then the emptiness of the self of the person, but then all things that we could relate to as mine, all the objects, are also seen to be empty at the same time as the self of the person because they could all, you know, at least the ones that I think of as mine. And you could see, so this second verse is a great contemplation because all the suffering, that comes from not only belief in me, but like mine, right? So all the like, my house, my car, my bank account, my family, my parents, my kids, my partner, all this stuff that like we identify with as mine, and my practice, my practice.

[83:08]

My what? Feeling? My feeling? My failing? My failure, my failure, my success. my enlightenment, all of it, right? My death. My death, yeah, anything. No problem if it's conventional, dependent co-arising, just, you know, if that's all it is, then fully enjoy it. But see how we so easily hold to our mind and how there's so much easily we can identify with things and just feel like they're mine. Like I just think, you know, especially like close relationships, it's like, feel like, without even knowing it, this kind of possession and then identification with the other person as part of oneself so that the people we really can fight with, right, are the people we're really close to. But they're not the same as us and they're not different things. Yeah, they're not. If we could see that, we wouldn't fight so much, but...

[84:09]

But it's that identification of like, they're me, actually, we feel like on some level, they're me or they're mine, maybe not in the way of just like, they're my person, but like, on some very deep unconscious level, they're part of me, so that therefore, if they do something other than the way I would do something, what, how could part of me be like, you know? Or that they would never go away, because I... I'm here, I'm always here, and so nothing that belongs to me could ever disintegrate or break. So since we know about impermanence, I mean, that's a very good experience. Everything goes, so it cannot be part of me. Yeah, yeah, and I go too, so I can't be part of me. And yeah, so all just, you know, again, just seeing it all as just totally interdependent, arising, created by, dependent on mind.

[85:12]

The conventional self is a mere imputation dependent on the body and mind. We could say other people are the same. They're conventional people dependent on their body and mind. But they're conceptually imputed by us in dependence on their body and mind. If I see Lin, for me, You, conventionally speaking, for me, you are a conceptual imputation dependent on that body and mind for me, for you. So you're pointing out dependence. Yeah, so everybody can be seen as just a dependent arising, dependent on, particularly dependent on mental imputation is the most subtle level of dependence. So... Did we get to verse 2? That was verse 2, right? That counts.

[86:14]

That counts. You know, and particularly, you know, the last verse is, without even reading it, it just says basically, without the Buddhas and the Buddha's disciples in the world, still this realization can arise, which is kind of a funny verse thrown in there at the end. Why should I read it? Yeah, it's interesting just to contemplate that... I mean, it's so real that you don't even need someone... I think that's it. It's so the way things are that actually it doesn't, in a sense, depend on the Buddha. In a way, it's completely interdependent with the Buddha, if there is a Buddha. So, you know, one of the things that Tsongkhapa says at the end of his commentary on this chapter is, having understood this chapter with a foundation of perfect virtue, you should gain familiarity with these teachings in an isolated place with all the things you've studied, bodhisattva practices, and especially the profound meaning.

[87:21]

One should not just recite the words without taking them to heart. This chapter presents a prescription for practice that wraps up the profound meaning expounded in the earlier and later chapters. It all comes down to this, the essencelessness of the self and of phenomena of I and mine. Essence-lessness? Yeah, selflessness or emptiness or absence of essence. So, it's been... Rough going. Why would you take up another text for the next study since we haven't done this one yet? Is there something better or easy? Maybe easier in a way and more pertinent just on the various stuff we've been talking about. That was my feeling. I was thinking of this chapter on meditation and emptiness for this study group. But we could. Anything is possible. Maybe whoever the people there are and what they want to do.

[88:24]

I'm not sure. Maybe 30 pages, I think. So thank you very much. And here's a paper if you're especially don't live here. There's a pen somewhere. And if you want to be contacted about a study group to continue, And also, here's a calligraphy for everyone. Does anyone know Chinese? Did you do that? Yeah. So this says, guess what it says? No self. Yes. No self. No self. So, yeah, no self. So I apologize to the people who make the point about not self instead of no self. But in case it starts to sound nihilistic, this little stamp on the side here says self-receiving and employing.

[89:29]

So that's the kind of positive, dependently co-arisen self-receiving and employing. TGU. This little seal on the side. This says no self. Muga. Muga. Muga. This is my name. Sramana Luminous Owl. In the bottom one is self. Yeah, this is self. If you look at the seal, if you'd like to take one, you can. The one in the seal is a different character for self. The no-self of self is kind of like ego-self, and the other one is like... Big self, maybe you could say. Different characters. Oh, self-receiving? Yeah, different character. It's Ji instead of Ga. Is this based on Buddhist influence, or did it exist before these characters exist? I was looking through Dogen, and this particular no-self is in Dogen's Gakudo Yojinshu.

[90:33]

He uses those two characters. I'm just practicing on my own. Muga? Muga. So we'll do the final chant so people can go. Thank you all for coming with this and delving into this extremely difficult topic with me and encouraging me to delve deeper too. May our intention equally...

[91:01]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_84.8