Generally, the Buddhism said in this way, the Buddhism is a thought of non-self. And every other Indian philosophical schools believed in that way. But, in the Buddhism Sutra, it wasn't said in that way. Even in Buddhism, the Atman is very important, but generally, it is said that way, in that way, you know, anti-self thought is a Buddhism, something like that. But, in the earlier text, the most important thing is, yeah, even Shakyamuni Buddha is

[01:25]

recognizing, not recognizing, yeah, recognizing the big self, you know, this self, Atman. But, he never described what is the Atman, which he is recognizing. Because, if he explained, or he described, even a little bit about that Atman, you know,

[02:26]

but probably, there would appear one more Indian philosophical schools, just the same. So, every other Indian philosophical schools, the thought, the Buddhism is a non-Atman, non-Anatman school. But, there is not an Anatman school, the kind of Atman school, but there is a different meaning between the Buddhism Atman and other philosophical schools' Atman. Other schools' Atman is something like this, we have a body, we human beings have a body,

[03:34]

and that human beings has a heart, heart, you know, heart, in his body, heart, and in that heart, there is a small hole, that's a residence of Atman, something like this. And, Atman's figure is such and such, they are explaining the place where Atman lives, and how Atman does, and what is Atman. So, once you describe the shape, or the conception of Atman, so Atman itself will have some,

[04:53]

you know, a concrete imagination for the human beings. So, the Shakyamuni Buddha didn't describe anything about Atman. But, he said, in this way, that we human beings are up to, up to think. That, the Atman is something which is not Atman.

[06:15]

So, there is two meanings of Atman. One Atman is, you know, the cosmic self, the big self, like big self. And the other Atman is Atman like Atman, which is not the true Atman. But, just the human beings thinks this is Atman, you know. So, two Atmans. So, there is two Atmans. There are two Atmans in the earlier Buddhism. And, the term of non-self, Anatman, or Anatta, was established for the wrong-meaning Atman.

[07:38]

The latter, for the latter. Then, the term of non-self appeared at that time. The non-self and the big self is just the same. So, we can't explain, we can't describe what is Atman, what is big self, what is non-self. If you describe, even a little bit about the Atman, or self, self itself,

[08:41]

that will have a limitation, you know. That will have a limitation. In this way, the thought of Atman, thought of non-self, or self, came up. But, in the later Buddhism, that is to say, Mahayana Buddhism, another new thought came up from this basic thinking. That is, we human beings, we all sentient beings, have already the big self.

[09:58]

We already have the big self. Just, when you think, when you hurt, when you hurt yourself, you can't notice yourself, true yourself. That's why you feel always the very difficulty to feel yourself. And also, you can't feel, you can't touch, you can't sense the big self.

[11:11]

If you can do the big self, that's a not big self. So, from this point, the non-Buddha, the thought of non-Buddha came up. If you stick to anything about the Buddha, too much, that's a non-Buddha. Actually, we have lots of Buddha statues and lots of Buddha pictures. And we can feel from the statue and pictures, very, very deep and compassionate feeling from those.

[12:15]

But, if you try to copy, if you try to be that figure, at that time, your practice is already wrong. So, you have to have your own practice. And nobody gives you the proof. Of which you have already had your self.

[13:26]

So, Dogen Zenji says, the practice and proof is just the same. And our practice is on having already a self. From that point, our practice was starting. Even if you didn't notice or not, our practice was starting in that way. In earlier Buddhism, primitive Buddhism, this kind of things was never said.

[15:01]

This is the characteristic point of Mahayana Buddhism. But, Dogen Zenji says, his Buddhism is not belonging to a Mahayana Buddhism. And also not to a Hinayana Buddhism. But, including them, all of the Buddhism. That's a mono-vehicle. Mono-vehicle Buddhism, he says. Ichijo-Bukkyo. Limitless, limitless Buddhism. If you can use the big vehicle, already there is some limitation. Because it's a vehicle.

[16:06]

There should be capacity. 300,000 people. 800,000 people. Anyway, there was already have limitation of capacity. So, there should be non-limitation things. It's a cosmic. Thank you. Thank you.

[16:56]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ