Great Zen teacher, Dogen, said, to study the way is to study the self. I've been investigating this issue of the self quite a bit over the last couple months, and I feel like this is really the... the key turning point between stuck bondage and suffering and problems and the liberation and freedom from that stuckness really seems to revolve around this issue of the self. And it's a It's a subtle issue, and if it was simple, we could just resolve it immediately.

[01:10]

Anyway, we can resolve it immediately, but it's a subtle point, so difficult to see. To study the way is to study the self, Dogen says. To study the self is to forget the self. So we have to look at what is this self that Dogen and that the Buddha was talking about. So we could say there's... I was going to present this model of five different types of self that are all operating for the most part right now in each of us. There's these five types of self. So the first one is the interdependent, constantly arising and ceasing body and mind of this person and each of your persons.

[02:24]

Sometimes said to be the five aggregates. which I won't go into the details of those today, but this one model of what the body and mind is. And Buddhist psychology presents various models of describing the breakdown of the mind for this very reason, to see the relationship of these aspects of the mind and what we call the self. So this would be, we could say, call this the interdependent arising and ceasing self is the body and mind constantly changing and body and mind interdependent with each other and with all other bodies and minds and interdependent with the whole world and we might even

[03:30]

look at the possibility that the what we call the world actually is an aspect of the mind and or the body that the way we experience the world is through our own unique perception so this is the world that's the important one to look at is that the one that we experience So we could say this is the interdependent whole universe, actually, arising and ceasing moment to moment. This is the first type of self. And to see how that one works is actually impossible. It's actually inconceivable, the way that it's so dynamic. It's just everything's affecting everything else. And it's completely impermanent, moment to moment. And we can never get a grip on it, on this kind of self.

[04:41]

And it's functioning right now in each person. From the beginning of time, this self has been. And this one is not a problem in Buddhadharma, this interdependent self that we can't get a handle on anyway. and is functioning fine and is actually creating our life without us even trying, this one, no problem at all. In fact, wonderful gift of the universe to create such a self, this one type of self. The second type of self could be said to be a special kind of conceptual imputation, like a conceptual mind-made projection of a self, of me, dependent on this constantly arising and ceasing body and mind.

[05:55]

So just a mere conceptual... fabrication, imputation. It's not an imputation of the body and mind, but there could be such a thing too, but this maybe most subtle type of self is this imputation dependent on the arising and ceasing body and mind, created by, from, the body and mind. And this we could call the mere I, I like me. The mere I, the conceptually imputed self. This one also is arising for each person, moment to moment.

[06:56]

We might be able to get a sense of this one, but it's hard to see, actually, because it's this conceptual imputation, and it's very wispy, cloud-like. It's a mental image, in a way, so it's hard to locate it, and it kind of moves around. It's a little bit slippery, but it is actually locatable. This self also is not a problem. This one does not give rise to suffering and distress and anxiety and so on. It's just, if we see what it is, that it's just a mental fabrication projected, dependent on body and mind. And this is the one that we, when we say I, I'm talking or whatever.

[07:59]

This is the one that we're kind of accurately referring to. You could say we're also referring to the first one, this interdependent one. But we have these conventions of using, say, this is me and this is you. And in this kind of conventional world, we're talking about this. We agree to make this kind of conceptual imputation of in order to talk to each other and function in the world. And you can see how, if you contemplate this, how evolution could have created such a self, such a mental imputation in order to distinguish between me and you and so on. So it's good. It has a good function in the world. And so evolution did well. We're the ones who survived this chain of evolution, the ones who actually can do this, project this one.

[09:02]

And actually, the proposal is that not just humans, but animals also have both these first two. In fact, animals will go on, we could say, probably the first four of these five. If we get down to insects, there might be some debate, but definitely like dogs and cats, and you can see it operating in them. So this one, also no problem. Both these first two are conventionally existent versions of self, and they're operating in every sentient being. So then the third one, third type of self, is we could call the inherently existent self. And this would be seeing this second type, this conceptual near-fabricated self that's dependent on body and mind, seeing and viewing that mental fabrication as actually inherently existing, meaning like existing by way of its own character.

[10:14]

existing from its own side. Sometimes you say the permanent self, but it's more subtle than just permanent. We do maybe see this inherently existing one as permanent, but that's kind of a grosser version to say it's the permanent self, because part of the proposal is that this inherently existent self, the view of the inherently existent self, because actually Nothing inherently exists, but it's a view that all sentient beings, humans and animals included, actually are born with. This is one proposal, anyway, that this is an innate view. It's not like you could say, well, what about little babies? They seem so innocent and free of this kind of... feeling of a separate me, you can see, well, the view is actually still there. They were born with the view, but it hasn't been fully activated yet, fully manifested.

[11:18]

And it's just a matter of time. Even without socialization and possibly even without language, as their mind develops, it comes into action. Around like six months, maybe, for a human baby. So this is the one that's the problem in Buddhadharma. The inherently existent self, which actually doesn't actually exist, it's completely an imagination, just like the second one was an imagination. But that imagination, just to see that it's an imagination, then it's no problem. But to project this inherent existence onto the imagined one, this is where the problem comes in. And it's innate. So we're born with this problem.

[12:21]

And the more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that this view, view or belief, very, very subtle, hidden kind of view, that even if we've heard this teaching about no self, a long time and we feel like, yeah, I understand there really is no self, there really is no inherently existing self. We really believe this conceptually. Still, this belief is like just hiding back there saying, yeah, yeah, but really on some very, very deep level, almost bodily level, we accept this view. and that this view is actually the origin of all suffering, anxiety, stress, dissatisfaction, discontent, fear, and then it's the root of greed, hate, and it is delusion. So you look at like a war or some huge

[13:31]

suffering a situation like this, you could say, well, that doesn't all come down to this view, does it? And I'm quite convinced that this view, this belief, really is the root of every possible, you know, there's great big problems like war and people killing each other and so on, and down to the slightest discontent, like something is a little bit off in my life. I wouldn't even call it suffering, but I don't suffer. But something just doesn't feel quite right today. That is still based on this view, I would propose, and everything in between. And I think to see the value in this kind of study of the self, I think that maybe the first would be to really contemplate this point, to really see, do I really think that actually this view is the cause of all that?

[14:38]

And I would say if we're really convinced that it is, then there will be a very strong motivation to study the self and forget the self. I think it's like we're not really convinced that that's the root of all problems, that we're not totally engaged in such a study. I would say. We think, well, there's other conditions of suffering, too, and there are actually other conditions. Each type, like war, has many conditions, but this one, the kind of thing about this view is it's one of the conditions of every single type of suffering, and each type has all these different conditions, but this one's in all of them, so if this condition is eliminated, then all the types of suffering are eliminated for a particular person and then ideally for all beings to actually could say in a way, eliminate this view, which isn't to say eliminate the inherently existent self, which can't be eliminated because it's not there in the first place.

[15:54]

It's just that there's this view And the tricky part is that it's this innate, very, very deep-held belief. You know, we say, well, we're born with beliefs, but in a sense, yeah, or a view, or a way of seeing. And this one, this inherently existent self, believing that this projection of the mere I, dependent on body and mind, that that mere I is really who I am. I mean, that mere I is really who I am, is who I am as the inherently existing person, not dependent on anything. And this one appears, when we start looking for it, it's very hard to see because it appears to be completely mixed with the first type of self, the interdependent body and mind, constantly arising and ceasing, completely ungraspable.

[17:16]

This inherently existent self seems to be, to our kind of... our natural mind before we start investigating this, it seems to be mixed. The inherently existing one seems to be mixed with the body and mind like milk and water completely. How are we going to find this view in this? Because it's mixed in with this very dynamic, changing thing. But it is actually locatable, and we can locate the sense of this belief, actually. And it helps to be sitting quietly, and the more concentrated and still, the better, we can actually start noticing, do I feel like... Well, we could ask, for example, who is it sitting here? Who am I sitting here, really?

[18:18]

At first, we might say, well, I know, I've heard this teaching in no self, so I know I'm just constantly rising. body and mind but like look deeper and do we really feel like well it's more than that there's something there's like there's this me this true identity uh we might be able to start locating and ways to help locate it because it is very subtle and elusive and slippery are um for example just to say the word i Because whenever we say that, the view is usually operating. We can say the word I, just referring to the mere I, the second type of self, knowing it's just a mental fabrication in order to use the word I. But usually, it's referring to this view, that there really is somebody here that's

[19:20]

not constantly arising and ceasing, and that's not completely interdependent with the whole world. We can say, I, we can notice it in any, basically, whenever there's suffering is one way to find it, because there it is, that's the basis of it, any kind of problem, actually, dissatisfaction. You could say, Maybe there are exceptions in the sense of compassionate suffering, really, truly suffering with others in a way that's not mixed in with our own kind of self-concern. I think usually even compassion is kind of mixed. Maybe someone really close to us is in pain. It's like we really feel their pain, but it's also like my own pain is mixed in too. But there could be this completely selfless compassion that would just be feeling the suffering of others, and it would be a kind of a suffering.

[20:25]

But then this is said to be actually a very happy suffering. It sounds contradictory, but the truly selfless compassion is a kind of suffering, maybe, but a very happy one. So we're not looking for that one in terms of this investigation. We're looking for the suffering that's not happy at all, that's really... problematic one. It's pretty easy to find in small ways throughout the day. And if we're sitting in meditation and things don't seem so bad, and this is a good time to look for this in meditation, then we might have to kind of bring it up by just remembering a time when, for example, somebody insulted us or accused us of something. Particularly a good one is imagining being falsely accused. really brings it up strong. You do that and you're like, not me. I didn't do it. That sense, that contraction, that feeling like nuts, that felt sense.

[21:33]

It's a bodily sensation, but mental, physical event, this view. The view is kind of like a mental, physical event. And not just negative things, too, but being praised, for example. Like, oh, yeah, I did it. Also can be strong praise, strong blame, things like this. Or any time any one of these afflictions comes up, if there's fear, it's like, okay, so that belief is in there somewhere, so look for it. And this might seem like a kind of unpleasant meditation, because Dogen says to study the ways to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self. Can we just forget it, actually? Maybe skip this step of locating it and getting really into it in a way, kind of building up the strong sense of the independent, inherently existent me.

[22:41]

And so there are different approaches to meditation. And so one would be to actually maybe not get so into it. Just as soon as we start any kind of suffering would start to arise, just know that, OK, this that view is there and just like let go. So this is this is good to this works. And this is there's peace, maybe instant peace to some extent arises by just letting it go on the spot. But it may be that such a meditation of just, you know, self-arise and let it go could be, you know, that might go on forever, actually, right? Because the view is not really being addressed. It's just being let go of. And we can maybe practice more and more fully in that way to, you know, immediately when it comes up, just let it go. But there's another way of meditation.

[23:45]

That might sound contradictory, but it's not necessarily completely contradictory of actually this kind of going into the view and really locating and investigating this innate view. And then through reasoning, coming to see how it really, really doesn't hold up. It can't hold up while keeping the view there. So while feeling this sense of self, basically investigating it and almost changing the view of the mind that innately believes this through logic, actually, and reasoning, which may sound strange, because we think, well, we can see the limitation in logic and reasoning. But because this view, this illogical view, unreasoned view that's innate, which is kind of, that's something to contemplate, too. It's almost miraculous that there could be this faulty logic that we're born with, but that's the proposal, that we have to use reason to actually convince the mind that the way it's always seen from the beginning of time is wrong.

[25:01]

And one example of this, just a very simple example, just to show that our innate view is illogical. is, for example, say we get hit. Somebody hits us. You say, oh, you hit me. Or we think, you hit me. So you hit me. Our language shows this now. So we think that actually the body, for example, or maybe the collection of body and mind is me. So you hit me. So in that sense, The body is being hit. So in that sense, the view, you could say, that that statement is based on is that the body is me. And we say this without thinking about it. And we kind of feel that it's true. You hit me. But sometimes we say, this is my body, which is actually a different view. So the first view is that the self, the inherently existing self, is the body.

[26:05]

The second would be that there's an inherently existent self that's kind of a possessor of the body and mind, owner of the body and mind. This is my body and my mind, so we talk this way too, and we really feel that it's true. This is getting kind of subtle, but I don't know if you can tell that those are two different views, and we use them both commonly, every day maybe, and everybody does, right? This is my body and mind, or like... This body and mind is me, and we can feel both those ways, which just goes to show that since it's two different views, and they both seem to be true, and actually neither one is true, they're both illogical, actually, that that's an example of how this innate view can be operating, and actually we live our lives according to it, but it really doesn't make sense. And it's actually a big problem. You hit me.

[27:08]

We can say that using the second type of self, the mere imputational self, if we know that that's all it is. You hit what I call myself. But we don't usually think of it this way. We don't say, oh, you hit the me that's actually an imputation, just a pure mental fabrication. Because we wouldn't have such a problem then if you hit that one. But you hit me, the real, this essential one. So there's three types of self, if you're tracking it so far. The fourth, we could say. So the third is the innate, inherently existent self that we're born with, very subtle, deep view. This is the main culprit, origin of all suffering. this view, the very root of samsara. So such a simple thing, right? So if you can see this, we can become very enthusiastic about investigating this view.

[28:17]

And the fourth would be other views of inherently existing self that aren't innate, because we have these two. And this would be like, Through our own thinking and speculating, we come up with other things, like maybe there's this true essential self that's residing in my deepest heart, and that's really who I am. Different religions and spirituality and philosophies come up with different proposals for these other views of inherent existence self that are not innate but are learned. or heard from others, or just merely thinking about it oneself. Because at a young age, I think we start to ask, well, who am I, actually? And we start coming up with these theories that usually don't really work. But we might start believing them, too. Maybe like a soul or something like this.

[29:19]

There's this inherently existent soul, or something that's reborn, life after life even, that just continues. There's some pretty sophisticated philosophical views that are still the inherently existent self. This one also is a problem, but not as much a problem as the innate one that seems to be mixed like milk and water with the body and mind. For example, this one of me being the owner of body and mind. is a little bit like the owner is kind of a little bit separate than body and mind. This might be a kind of a learned view through our own speculation. We might think, well, I am the one who's the kind of the controller of the body and mind. We might feel this way, too, because it can be related to the innate sense of self. So the controller, like the assessor, the one who's constantly assessing, like, how is this body and mind doing?

[30:25]

how am i doing how am i doing it's kind of this voice that's constantly going and um um judging oneself you know um judge you know the self that judges the body and mind and how it's doing these kind of things maybe the innate one and maybe um extra learned ones but um And again, they're all just arisen from this constantly changing body and mind, all these views. But then they're believed that there's really somebody there more than just a conceptual imputation. And so the fourth is the non-innate, inherently existent self view. And the fifth, we could say, is the true self. So this, we could say, is the... It's not existent or non-existent. And what it is, actually, is the absence of any views of the inherently existent self.

[31:32]

It's the emptiness of all versions of graspable self. It's the true self. So we say, well, why do we call it a self? But we just do that to play. This kind of a Zen thing is called this true self. The Buddha didn't actually talk that way, but we could say this, the true self, the capital S, is actually no self. It's the emptiness of the inherently existent selves, but it's not the absence of the conventional self and the dependently co-arisen self, and it's not the absence of this mentally constructed version of self. Those ones are okay, even though they're also empty in another way, but they're not negated. They don't need to disappear. And this true self, like Master Linji said, there's this true person of no rank.

[32:42]

person of no position going in and out through the portals of your face of everybody. The sense organs that are the receptors for the mind. When we talk about body and mind, we can say body and mind actually is the six senses, the five sense organs and the mind sense. The true person of no position going in and out through the body and mind, particularly the portals of the face is where we really actually experience the world. There's so many sense organs clustered up here, but the whole rest of the body is a sense organ, too. And the mind has no location. The true person. So it's not an inherently existent person going in and out through the portals of our face. But it's the true, the true self, the one that's completely empty of any graspability.

[33:49]

And going in and out through the portals of our face, for those who haven't seen it, look! Look! So this is investigate, investigate, what is this one? A monk stepped forward and said, what is this true person of no rank, no position? And Master Lingi grabbed him and said, speak, speak. And the monk hesitated. And Lingi pushed him away and said, the true person of no rank, what a dry piece of crap. This is praise in a way. Sometimes these... these Zen people talk like that, to praise the true person of no position. But this true person of no position doesn't hesitate.

[34:50]

It responds, immediate response. The true self is the completely spontaneous, compassionate, truly, deeply, selflessly compassionate, while being completely empty, joyful self. And so, that monk was speculating on, you know, what could it be, looking for some version, some real, true person in there, where it was... And as I said at the beginning, you know, all these are operating all the time in all of us. So obviously the interdependent one that we can't get a hold of, that's the basis for our life. That is our life that's happening. But almost we don't need to worry about that one or even investigate that one. It's just taking care of itself.

[35:50]

And then there's the mental fabrication. And then there's the view of the inherently existent self. Actually, this view continues to appear, according to tradition, until one has almost completely realized Buddhahood in terms of these kind of bodhisattva stages and so on. It's at a very far later stage that the appearance of it ceases. So for even great, great bodhisattvas, the appearance of the inherently existing self continues to arise, but it's really not believed in the slightest. So this is operating whether or not we believe in it. And the fourth, these non-innate views may or may not be operating, but we have to investigate whether we hold any of those. And then the true self actually is operating, even in a sense, you could say while holding the view.

[36:58]

Because the view is empty, we don't have to empty it. It is empty. So in that sense, the true self is... right here, and we just have to understand how it's so. So in this model that maybe was hard to follow, and you can review it during question and answer, nothing actually needs to be destroyed or obliterated. Sometimes they say, well, this view is obliterated, but actually I think a better way to put it is it's just seen for what it is. It's understood. So, um, when it's classic Indian metaphors that I'll just mention that, cause I think it's, it's just a metaphor, but, uh, but I think it shows this point very well is about the snake and the rope. And people may have heard. So it's like, you know, you're walking along in the dark and you see a snake and jump back in and, you know, immediate fear snake.

[38:03]

And then, um, Then looking closer, and it's dark, so, you know, looking closer, maybe flashlight, look down and, oh, it's just a piece of rope. And, you know, as soon as seeing it's the rope, the fear is like, does it gradually go away? Like, well, I still should be a little afraid. It's just like, it's just like, it's like, it doesn't even make sense that I was afraid, right? It's like immediately like, oh, like waking up from a dream or something. I think it's such a great metaphor because the snake brings up the fear, but you can see it's merely a conceptual imputation of a snake. It's a mere imagination. It's not a snake, but we see it that way. And our investigation, with the flashlight of mindfulness and concentration and deeply looking, look, look, we can see, actually just a rope.

[39:04]

All the fear is gone. And even the fear that we had just a moment ago based on the snake seems ridiculous. It's like, why was I afraid of that? It's actually just a rope. So you can see how this, I think it's a beautiful image to say, to also show that actually the snake doesn't get destroyed. The snake doesn't get obliterated. You don't have to kill the snake. You don't have to have the snake catcher come and remove the snake. It's just seeing for what it is, but in this case of the self, it's a very subtle thing to see, but worth the effort, I say. And again, going back to this point about two different kinds of meditation, just letting go of self-grasping starts to arise, just let it go. And this arises, let it go.

[40:05]

One type, and then the other type is actually don't let it go. It starts to arise, let it arise even stronger, really get into, you know, experiencing it fully. And then while you have a kind of a strong sense of it, it's kind of like a sense of it that you can experience, then you start looking, how could this be? And you know that it's just the mind has created it. And there's various reasonings that I'm not even going to go into right now, but that you can actually reason with your mind to be convinced that there's actually no way that anything, including a self, could exist independently or inherently exist or exist by way of its own character. It's impossible according to the laws of the universe, very simple laws of the universe. I won't mention them, but you can actually probably see it for yourself, and you probably heard some of them.

[41:07]

And they don't have to be contradictory types of meditation, because the first one of just letting go, letting go, calms the mind, more peaceful meditation, and then is very concentrated, calm, flexible, body and mind, that's the best place to start doing this other work of investigating the view. They say, I'm quite convinced that this is a very valuable endeavor to investigation study of the self and it's so easy to get sidetracked and there's so many other Dharma teachings too right that that are also so great and maybe in a way you can see how many of them come down to the same point and just have spoken of in different ways but I just this for myself I want you not get sidetracked into

[42:28]

less important investigations, maybe. Because also, this is the root of all compassion. If we're free of this, it's not just so I can be free. This is so the world can actually be in harmony. So that's a little bit... I could go on for a long time, but it's time to stop. May such an investigation arise for each of you in whatever form it takes for the benefit of all. Thank you.

[43:27]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_94.82