Log In
Sign Up
Log In
Sign Up

Details

Root of The Middle Way – Session 03

Teachers: 
Collection: 
  • Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location: 
  • Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features: 
  • Subtitles ,
  • Transcripts
Understanding dependent origination equates to understanding the Dharma. The human flaw of perceiving a permanent, controlling self, is highlighted.

Session 3 delves into the concept of self and the Buddha’s teachings on dependent origination. Opening with respect to the Buddha, it emphasizes that understanding dependent origination equates to understanding the Dharma. The discourse then highlights the human flaw of perceiving a permanent, controlling self, and attendees are urged to introspect deeply on this belief. This introspection leads to discussions about the continuous nature of self and the “observing self.” The role of the physical body, with its ever-changing nature, is explored, contrasting it with traditional beliefs of a static identity. As these revelations unfold, the implications for our motivations and understanding of the self are considered. The lecture underscores the need for courage in confronting these philosophical challenges, with the Buddhist teachings providing both guidance and solace.

Video
Audio
play-rounded-outline
 
LanguageEnglishEnglish
So before we start, let's read the homage, which is an homage to the teacher, the Buddha, acknowledging the Buddha is the perfect teacher. And why? Because of the teaching of dependent origination. That's what Nāgārjuna says makes the Buddha the perfect teacher, his ability to convey the meaning of dependent origination free from conceptual constructs. So we talked about yesterday that, as the sūtra says, seeing dependent origination is seeing the Dharma,"The Rice Seedling Sūtra," which you can read in English translation at the 84,000 website.
It says, "Seeing dependent origination is seeing the Dharma, and seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha." So in many ways this verse can be seen as a flawless way of going for refuge, and if we do that with a wish to learn deeply and genuinely in order to benefit an infinite amount of beings, then that's probably a flawless way of beginning this kind of session. So let's do that. And also of course when profound subject matter like this is being studied, then as you know there are traditionally a number of key points to keep in mind in terms of how one considers oneself. Like in the general context of the teachings one sees oneself as a sick person who has been afflicted by the disease of ignorance and negative emotions, and then looking for a cure one goes to the skilled doctor who is the Buddha and receives the remedy which is the teaching, and then one's application of that is taking the cure. So that's the kind of perspective that one is encouraged to assume from a general perspective. And in the context of the Mahāyāna everything that one does should be done in terms of the practice of the six pāramitās, and so also the teaching and study session, contemplation, should be within the framework of the six pāramitās. And so on, these three flaws of the vessel and so on that you all know very well, that one is supposed to stay clear of the ways of not apprehending the subject matter. So all of that stuff is good to always recollect and remind ourselves of to make sure that we can really benefit from the encounter and engagement with a profound teaching of this kind. So let's begin by reading the verses of homage. "That which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go, is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same, to the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha, I bow down." And then yesterday we spent some time talking about dependent origination in the general Buddhist context, where there's this distinction between outer dependent origination and inner dependent origination, outer dependent origination being the kind of causal dependencies that we see in the world around us, and the inner dependent origination being the way that life and death evolves and revolves based on dependencies, the twelve links of dependence arising. And we said that that dependent arising of the twelve links is based on consciousness being continuously the recipient of and the ripener of seeds of ignorance and negative emotions. And then if we talk about ignorance, some sort of mistake is implied, no? There's something that we're not aware of. Otherwise, why would we call it ignorance? And the specific type of ignorance that is pointed out in the very basic level of Buddhist philosophy is the ignorance of believing in a self that is singular and permanent and in control. So the belief that I am a single individual who remains and is in control of actions and so on. So then we said, "OK, do I feel like that? Do I believe like that or not?" We said we would sort of ponder that question and try to notice our experience, notice the way that we think and interact and so on and see whether there was a reason for saying that we have this kind of tendency
to think and believe in this way. So I would love to hear what you think about that. Thank you. So, Mikki, I think. Thank you. All good. No problem. "OK. You really asked us to kind of honestly look at our beliefs rather than just accepting what is taught. And I just spent some time yesterday just realizing that I'm looking after this sense of self 24/7. You know, I'm always looking after number one, trying to push things away or wanting things. And then I was sort of thinking about, well, you know, this sense of permanence. Do I feel that I am the same person as I was before? I can see sort of intellectually that I'm not the same. But in terms of how I think about my memories, I do feel that there is some kind of thread that's passing through. So there is a kind of difference between something experiential and my intellectual understanding. And also, actually, I think that permanence for me, my grasping at permanence is more like how I see myself in the future. Like, for example, I'm kind of worried about my pension, for example, you know, that there's going to be a me who's going to need a pension. Or when am I going to have dinner tonight? So there's always that kind of anxiety and grasping and it's exhausting. And it's continuous and it never stops. And how lovely if I could somehow let it go." Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, that's I think I know what you talk about. Yeah, it's...So, yes, certainly, then if if that is where we where we end up and thinking about this question, then it's extremely relevant. But then we might find out about this self, whatever it may be, any discovery that we may have about this self, which you said we are on 24/7. That will then be hugely relevant because it will be something that is applicable to--if that really is the case, that does that sort of orientation constantly, then it will have constant implications. whatever we find out. So that's a big part of the inquiry is trying to see how relevant is all of this stuff actually? And if it's something most things are relevant only sometimes and some things are not relevant at all in our whole life, we'll never have any real need for many things that we can nonetheless spend time on. Then there are other things that are relevant, very relevant in certain cases, like, yeah, if we know self-defense, if there's a kind of dangerous situation, then that would be hugely relevant at that particular time. But it may only be for a few minutes in our whole life and yet hugely beneficial. And then there are other things that are relevant on a daily basis, things that we need to remember and understand continuously to function. There are lots of those. But again, most of those are also things that are relevant in certain contexts and not in others, even if it's something that we need to be aware of on a daily basis. But if there's something that has implications for every moment of our existence, which is what you sort of indicated--if that is really the case, and whether that's the case is of course an open question. But we can certainly get that impression that this seems to be something that is there with me all the time. I just can't stop thinking in this way. That I'm someone who needs something, that I'm someone who needs to maintain myself one way or the other, and I'm here, the world is there. Once we begin to notice it, it's easy to get the sense that this is, yeah, it's all the time.
So, but what are other perceptions and understandings?

Okay, yeah. "So I find this idea of no-self experientially to feel true. Like if I meditate and I think about it, it seems these thoughts kind of arise without me having any agency in the matter. I meditate and this thought will pop in my head, like, "Oh, what am I going to do this weekend?" or "What will I have for dinner?" But it's not like I decided, I wanted to think that it kind of just happened. So it resonates with me that way. But then I find there's some intellectual hurdles I guess I have with the idea. I think if there's no me, then what is it that is being awakened and what is it that's understanding these truths? So I guess, you know, it's my experience with it." This sort of spontaneous, spontaneity of it, I think is very important to.. That is also why it seems so obvious that this is a truth, no? That there is an individual me, because it's not a conclusion we reach. It feels like we were born like that. But at this point we're not talking about whether that is true or not, but just whether there is such an individual once we investigate and examine, meditate and so on. We're just talking about whether we have the impression that there is such an individual. If we would say that I don't have that impression, then a lot of basic Buddhist philosophy we could say may be interesting, but it's not something that really addresses the way I experience the world. So, then how do we do with the online verses? Meanwhile, let's have another...
"So I was thinking about how right now I'm looking at you, but then I'm thinking about, oh, this seat feels a little uncomfortable or like, you know, my mind is like going in all these different directions, which are a part of like dependent, the 12 links. And like, I see it, you know, and I realize how like my perception is also like so limited in terms of like what I see, because like we don't see the entire picture. And I was just wondering, like in terms of like our conscious self, like what I'm looking at right now, and then like the subconscious of what things that I don't see, it's made me realize that like, I don't know, like I don't really understand myself. Right. Yeah, that's a very good point. Yeah, I was really like thinking about it. Yeah. And then I was thinking like, over time, like we're constantly in these like phases of like craving, you know, and then we have a thought and then we go there. We're never like just actually focusing on ourselves. So in that way, I mean, I guess that's where like, maybe we need to go towards like understanding more of like who we are. Like we don't see the entire picture. So our perception is so limited. Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking about, like a sense of self. However, our sense of self is always changing, because like, I'm not the same. I kind of am the same person, like, in some way, like, you know, physically, but I'm also different because I think, you know, our thought process changes. I think there are always like slight changes in our, with what we absorb with our experiences because we are impermanent. And then all the contact we have with different people, I feel like it transforms us. So yeah, that's my thought." Thank you. So if I heard you correctly, then part of what you said is about this sort of struggle to say, so what really do I believe? What really do I feel? And because consciousness is complex and mysterious and the world is complex and mysterious and I'm part of it, and how can I really? Okay, so what really do I mean? How really does it feel? And so on. So that can be a very relevant reaction, no? But I think nonetheless, what we aim to do here is always to not give up, so to speak, not give up in the sense of never feeling that we are not qualified. And just about the first thing you said, with the subconscious and all of that, so how can I know the subconscious? By definition, I can't. So who knows how I feel? But there is
in this context, there are enormous implications if we say something like that. What we will be getting into is a way of discussing and analyzing, enquiring, where every belief we have, every statement we make is to be taken extremely seriously. So that's something we're not used to, no? We're used to working things out, thankfully, we're used to not taking each other deadly seriously, because if we did that, we wouldn't get far. So we have to somehow figure out what each other mean as we go, and what we ourselves mean, we don't have time to really pause and ask myself, so what really do I mean now? Am I 100% sure that it's correct what I said? And so on. It doesn't happen really in our lives usually, no? But that's in itself quite interesting that it doesn't happen. But what we do now is pausing deliberately to ask exactly those types of questions. What did I just say? What did I just think? Is that a reasonable and accurate observation? Is it an accurate and a reasonable statement to make? And if we say, no it's not, then that has huge implications, then we have said something that just is not right. So that means, okay, it was mistaken, we can throw that away. What is then the right understanding? What is the right perception? And so on. So that is one of the things that is really important to keep in mind very acutely, that here we are not really discussing things, but the word analysis is also very good. Because we are really trying to figure out what we ourselves believe and what we ourselves are justified in believing. What we can believe, what we can say, all of that is really the target to figure out here. So it's a very unusual situation where the whole sort of... Even in philosophy it's hard to find that sort of rigor that this requires. Because if you have a philosophical system you have to work with it also, you have to develop it, you have to adjust it to other things. And so there's a natural sense of working together, dependent origination of philosophical systems. And you don't think the philosophical system, it may seem very rigorous, but in order to work with it we still have to sort of feel our way forward. Do you get what I'm trying to say? That it's very rare to find an occasion where you demand 100% rigor, so to speak. So that's actually what we are asking ourselves to be at this point. Not be rigorous in applying some sort of external belief system, but be 100% rigorous in examining our own beliefs, and our own perceptions, our own feelings, and so on, the whole package.
Okay, yeah. There are some responses online as well, yeah? Quite lousy, can you speak? Sorry? Should I do something?
Is anyone online speaking? "I was reflecting on, in terms of, I was trying to do a reflection yesterday, and I ended in a place of being somebody that stubbornly believes in causality and interrelation. So I just, because for me it wasn't even the question, I mean of course I feel myself as a solid entity, but it comes from this seeing everything in relation, to myself in relation, and everything out there in relation, so both the inner dependent origination and the outer, that there's kind of a stubborn view of not wanting to see things randomly appearing or spontaneously appearing, not in relation to each other. So it's like, yeah, a stubborn belief in causality, and me being the cause of things." And you being a true individual, meaning a single person? "It's funny because I use a lot of metaphors about myself, so sometimes I feel, I say this part of me or that part of me. So that's not a single person, that's a term kind of, it's a single person that has parts, right? Or having a feeling that I change, but yeah, no, there's a stubborn belief in an entity for sure of some sort. Whether it's a blob or it's made up of parts, so if any other metaphor might apply." Right. I think that's very interesting, that we can somehow, if you agree, I would say that we can somehow maintain the feeling of being one individual without thinking that it's any, yeah, it can be a blob, I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but sort of undefined something, me. And then it can also be something that we are comfortable with saying has different, one part of me says this and another part says that, so a sort of system of sorts. So that's probably how we typically think of ourselves, I am one person and I'm a sort of system of sorts too. But the main issue at this point is simply to notice whether we have that belief of being one and being someone who goes through time as the same individual. Maybe one more, let's see if there's the online thing. "Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. There is a kind of barrier between myself and others in the sense that I cannot directly experience their thoughts. I depend on conclusions from observing the first phase, from analyzing the words, but sometimes it goes wrong, obviously. So even the assumption that there are others who experience thoughts from their side, it's just an assumption which is rigorously difficult to verify or to disprove. And so I feel there is some kind of limit or barrier which may lead to the kind of definition of self or the assumption of self." Okay, thank you. So that says something about our idea of self as being something that is very fundamental. That while we cannot know really whether there is a living being in front of us or not, we could say, you know, while we cannot verify whether there are other minds in the room or not in a sort of very definitive and certain fashion, then I am here. So there is something perhaps much more obvious about that belief than the belief that you are here. And there are certainly also deep thinkers who have gone that way, you know, like in the West with Descartes' meditations, that begin by saying that, or that built on the conclusion that 'I think, so I am.' So there is something here that is undeniable and that is me. And then there are many things out there, but what they are and so forth is more difficult to say. So there is something about the belief in me that is very, or something about being me that is so irrefutably real. So that is again, if we feel in that way, then that is again evidence of whatever we may come to understand about that being me and that me that we feel so strongly exists will have huge implications, because it is something that is really foundational for us. It is something that is so fundamental and obvious to us in a sense that it cannot be questioned in the way that basically everything else can. So at this point perhaps we can then, why is it that we have this belief? Maybe here one or two replies to that, like, okay, it feels so overwhelmingly real and it feels continuous that I continue to be around in this very undeniable fashion. So why do we have that feeling? Why do we have that belief? Maybe, yeah, okay, sure. Oh, yeah, okay. Beautiful. Yeah, thank you. "Actually, I am not sure if I have a direct reflection on that one, but I think along with what I reflected yesterday, maybe I can share a little bit. So my experience would be, I somehow can experience there is like changing moments and change, like, you know, this morning I do some yoga and practice and then I go to Upala, then like this activity, right, somebody is doing that activity, but that person who is doing that activity actually changes. It does change. I do have the feeling. You know, it's different from where in a coarse level the person is different, but even in a little bit more subtle level, like when the activity is being done from the previous moment to the next one, things change, right? The breath change, the thought change and the physical action change, but then to me it seems like it's a continuum of changing moments or changing activity. So that's fine, but I do feel there is somebody who is watching, like there is something that is aware of that continuum, and that thing needs to be there, like it needs to be permanent. So therefore you ask, why do I need that, somebody who is aware of that continuum? It's because I feel if I don't have that, then there is no more ground, like there is this something that is aware of that continuum gives me safety. Like I feel like I can put my feet on it, like somebody is aware of this continuum, even though things change constantly, but then there is this thing that is aware of that change. That gives a sense of safety, groundness. So I think that's why I need it."
Yes. So that thing though is supposed to be myself. "I don't know what it is." So I guess the question is what is that thing that needs to be there? I mean we are talking about, so I guess the question for you to consider would be, is that thing yourself? "I feel that thing is something that is aware. It's not like a person, so to speak, I don't know if it's a consciousness, but it's something that is aware of all the changes that's going on, like something that watches the river flows." So that I think is very useful when there is a distinction between a person and something else, a watcher, consciousness, a process of consciousness and so on. That is very much I think what the basic Buddhist view, a distinction that the basic Buddhist philosophy wishes to make. That there is one kind of person..
that we can say certain things about, specifically that it doesn't exist, but there are many other things that we certainly don't have to say that about and actually shouldn't say that about. So, thank you. So again the key issue that we have been thinking of is, do I feel that I am one individual, a single identity, person, and someone who remains like that from one situation to the next. And now we are also thinking, so if that is the case, it seems most people say that I do think along those lines. It's not the only thought I have about myself, but it captures something very important about my own understanding of myself. I am a person, one person, not many really. I can talk about this me and that me, but it's still the same me that I am ultimately concerned with. And just as I can talk about many kinds of me, I can speak about the me as I was ten years ago and imagine me in fifteen years and say I would be a different man, I would be a different woman, but it's me nonetheless. So it seems most have that sense that that's how I feel. One, the individuality and the permanence of that individuality is certainly something that is descriptive of my way of thinking and feeling, believing and so on. So then we ask the next question, which is why do I have that strong impression and that strong belief? Oh, sorry, you had something first, no? Why don't you say it first? "I was going to answer this question, at least the way that I thought of it. So the mental landscape of things is kind of one thing. I think we can sit with the thoughts that flow by and kind of zoom out in a way that's maybe disassociating from them as being attached to a definite sense of I. But that said, the second that the body gets hungry or the body has to go to the bathroom or something like that, it all of a sudden demands an assumption of individual experience. So to me the notion of being embodied, which feels like an undeniable fact to this experience currently, no matter whether it belongs to something or not, it's very closely linked with whatever my awareness is, whatever the experience that we're all having is. And so then when it has a particular demand that is then clearly separate from other people's, or seems to distinguish itself as being something more immediate, more pressing, and more true and real than someone else's experience, then to me there's a demand of separation. And so the embodied piece is what's hard for me. And then even notions of enlightenment being private. I've heard teachers say this, that enlightenment is private. And so even after the point of culmination there seems to be an individuation that's possible and present. Otherwise there would be no distinction between one Buddha and the next, right? Which maybe we can say isn't, but in terms of the embodied teachers we have access to, there are more than one and they seem different, even if we grant the notion that they could be potentially fully enlightened."
So those are all issues that we will be, or points that we will be exploring in detail in the text, including also the teacher on the Tathagata, there's a whole chapter on that. Because that would be a classic argument to say that if you are Buddhist now, if you are a believing Buddhist, then okay, if certain great individuals can become Buddhas, then it's that individual who became a Buddha now, and that seems like solid evidence of some sort of identity, individuality. So about the body, that's also I think a very typical, we think of that as a very powerful reason for thinking of self. I think you pointed that out very well, that myself, it's very hard to have a meaningful sense of myself if disassociated with this body, or at least some form of embodied existence. Very difficult. What would that mean? To be an individual without anybody at all. So that seems to be something very strong and powerful and meaningful about the fact that there is a body, and my perception of being me is very determined by what goes on in this system. That's something I think we all must acknowledge, that there
is that, it's almost like the whole argument stops there. Like okay, I can touch you, I'm here, and what more can you say? So that's something very even profound about that observation, about the embodied nature of being an individual, of having consciousness, etc. Again, now we're talking about the reasons for our belief that I exist, and we're talking about one particular version of believing I am, which has to do with thinking that I am, I am one person, and I'm continuous, I'm constant. It's me now, just as it was me yesterday. Otherwise I would have died. If it's not me who is here today, then who should it be? It doesn't hold in the court of law, I don't know, if I say oh no, it was a different person yesterday, of course it's me again today. So that type of individual, what relation does that type of individual have to the body? So if we look at what is the body, then we're looking for something which is one constant being. Wherever we look in the physical system of the body, we find many things, right? If my body, then we think one body, of course, but we know so well that my body is not just one thing, that it's many things, right? It's something we don't, it's obvious, right, that a body has, for example, two legs, two arms, a head, and so on. And those are all different things. And of course if I look at my arm, then the arm has upper arm, lower, hands, the hand has fingers, the fingers have joints, and so on. It doesn't stop seemingly anywhere. We can begin to, with the help of science, we can investigate closer and closer. And it's like these movies that are available also now of microscopic observations, it's like a universe that opens up, seemingly as endless as the universe around us. So if that is the case, then this very strong argument for saying "I am", namely the fact of the body, seems to be a fact of something radically different than one thing. It's not just, so that which we thought would be evidence of that, or that which we take as evidence of that, is actually counter evidence. We find the opposite of what we need to find in order to be justified in having the belief that "I am one individual". And the body also, and again we can benefit very much from scientific analysis, from medicine and biology and so on, physics, we can understand that this system and its substances are in continuous change. There's nothing there that stays the same, perhaps not even for a moment. Wherever we look we find processes, the body is a living system, right? Otherwise it's a decomposing body. There's nothing there that stays the same, not even from one moment to the next. So I believe I am one person and I believe I am constant as one person. And one of my core reasons for that is this experience of being embodied. And yet what I take to be a reason that justifies this conclusion. And like before we said, there's something so strong about pointing to the body that, like I was saying, you say "I am not here, there's no single me, there's no constant me". It's very natural to feel "But hey, I just hurt my finger". Or if you say like that "Let's see what happens if I throw a glass of water in your face" and stuff like that. There's something very strong and powerful about that argument. But what we are pointing to is not only something that doesn't support our conclusion, it's something that supports the opposite conclusion. That is very bizarre, no? We take it to be a clear and powerful argument to show that I am one being who is continuous in time, or who is constant in time, and yet when I look at the evidence that I present to myself or to others, then I find not only unsuccessful or flawed evidence, I find counter evidence. So my case is actually much worse off after that. So okay, then maybe the body is not the answer. Whatever myriads of interesting things there might be to say about the body, the body has nothing to do with my... It doesn't provide any reason for my belief that I am one constant individual. But what other evidence would there then be? Now at home, please examine whether this is so. Is the body argument now dismissed as an argument for saying I am one individual, a constant permanent individual? I am one me because if you call my name, I don't have to ask myself who should answer. I am the one who hears it, and if I want to answer, I will be the one who answers. I don't have to ask anyone. We don't have to have a discussion among ourselves.
So I am one me and in the same way I also feel very naturally and we all agree and nobody will accept otherwise, even if we try to advance that position that I remain the same person from day to day, months to months. Throughout my life it is the same one me, it's my life, not many people's lives. So is it now the case that all of those beliefs have nothing to do with the body? That in the sense that we cannot find any justification for those beliefs by pointing to the body? That's what we have been concluding at this point. So please think of that carefully at home and whenever you have these sessions of inquiry. Are we really there already to be able to say that much? But if we are, then how about the other kinds of evidence that we have for having this belief in a singular and enduring person? What else is there? What would you say? Yes? "I was just thinking about this current, this teaching and learning situation and I feel that I am making an effort to pay attention. I also hope that I will learn something out of this, this in the future will be some acquired knowledge and I feel that I am in control as to how much I try to learn out of this situation." Yes, I am happy to know that. Now we are trying to see why do we have feelings and thoughts of this kind. In particular, the associated idea that you are one person who is doing this, who is studying this stuff and who has these expectations and hopes of being able to learn something. One person who will be able then to benefit in the future because you are also a constant permanent individual. That is what we are trying to look for reasons for. Why do we have beliefs of this kind? "It is a slightly different angle like this. It is not pointing to ontological evidence. It is more, I see that there is, excuse me, like, in so far as there is this belief in itself seems to just be the cause of all suffering in the world. It may also be the cause of all good in the sense that every one of us in this room only made it to this room because we believe incorrectly in a self. Take yourself for example. You have only gained all of this amazing knowledge about Nāgārjuna and Buddhist philosophy because you are operating under this misapprehension of a stable self that persists throughout time. This lady sitting right in front of me, sorry I don't know your name, but I think it is all for the best that you worry about your pension. You will indeed retire at some point and I hope that you are supported during that period. So I think there is a very profound pragmatic reason for this belief. I have never really thought of this question of why before. I have always been like, "Oh, it doesn't exist." Boom, done. I think the question is such a great question. I am so glad you asked it because I do feel like now thinking about this, "Okay, if I lost this, what else would I be giving up? Potentially everything I value." Yeah, it is a deep question and the consequences are quite daunting.
But again, this is super important to know and to acknowledge what you say. It seems like even if we say that we are getting ahead of ourselves, saying that it is a mistake, because who says it is a mistake, but if it is a mistake, then it could be a necessary mistake. That is also something that is, I think, very commonly, it is a common view to have, in particular these days, a sort of scientific perspective on consciousness and the world and to say that, yeah, it may be a construct and in that sense the self is not something that we can actually find when looking for it, beyond just acknowledging our use of such concepts. But it is very necessary to go about things in this way by having and being skilled in using, in operating with that concept of self. And if we go wrong, it can be, yeah, having no pension is a small issue, no, compared to what really can, people lose their minds, no? That is not...
again, this goes to show that we are talking about something really fundamental and it is something that whatever, again, we find out here will have pervasive implications for what there is, what we do, what we can be. But that much said, I think why it is also often, so this kind of insight can be overwhelming and the very topic can seem very intimidating, and yet we are talking only about "personal self", whether that exists or not. Quite soon we will begin to think about emptiness everywhere. So even this, the fundamental basic Buddhist philosophical point of view is very, seems to go to the bottom of so many things. However, in order to benefit from this kind of analysis, then we need to have a certain courage. So even if we don't have it, we just have to tell ourselves, okay, and I guess perhaps in that regard, maybe our experience from going to school and taking science classes, philosophy classes and so on can be helpful, because there we also know that things, we don't feel necessarily, what to say, at least I get the sense that many scientists who feel very comfortable with talking about self as being an error, don't feel that it's so intimidating. Or they feel that, okay, as you said, it's just an, did you say that you were used to thinking that it is an erroneous, so many people I think feel like that. So once we begin to feel that, oh hey man, what really is going to happen now, then we can zoom out a little bit. We can zoom out a little bit and say, okay, all I'm doing here is just looking at this idea of oneness and permanence, and I'm just trying to see is there any real justification for it? I just want to know that. And then do you see what I'm trying to say? That it's very important that we, on the one hand, we need to take in what we discover, but at this point we haven't, perhaps we haven't discovered all that much. We began to investigate the body to see if it's a good reason for, having the belief that I am one single individual. So we kind of, perhaps we are done with that investigation, we have found that it's not. Then that, if we have found that, then we just allow ourselves very gently and peacefully to acknowledge that, without any prejudice or expectation, just acknowledge what we found out. And then we can come, when that situation calls for it or invites us to continue, then we can go on to look at something else. And if we are still not there, then we keep working on our experience of the body, what a body is. Is it something that can really be seen as evidence of a single enduring thing or not? So in that case, as long as we do that, then
we have to have this kind of cool discernment. We have to have that, that gives us the courage to take the inquiry further. If we come to a point at which we think, I'm in front of something here so deep and I don't know, I dare not proceed any further, then we don't. It's quite likely that we will come to that point. But when we do, then I think there are two ways that we can go about it. Sorry, the time is running out. There are two ways to go about it. One is a call for cool and calm, where we just tell ourselves to examine and analyse carefully and calmly with clear discernment in the way that we would usually do in school when trying to understand something very well. Another thing that we can rely on if we are Buddhists is to think that this kind of analysis is something that comes in a tradition where it is associated with immense benefit. So if we have the guts to stick it out and carry through with this, then the people who present this, they talk about it as if it's something that will make all the difference in the world. So that can also give us some strength. It's not a hope that I really hope that it will help me, but it's just a certain sort of confidence that, OK, well, let me see. It's different than if we just found a newspaper talking about this stuff, or picked up a book in the library, or came across something on the Internet that seemed very disturbing. Who knows where it came from and so on. If we are believers of some sort, then we can benefit from that as well. If we have some good experience with Buddhist tradition, if we have felt and experienced something that was really good, meaningful, beautiful and so on, then we know that it comes from that source, this stuff. So that can give us the calm and also some beauty that wouldn't necessarily be there with the calm perspective. But these two things that we have to rely on in order to get the courage, which is crucial. If we don't have the courage, this won't be worth our while. So let's continue thinking of the evidence for the belief in self until tomorrow, and also specifically we talked about the embodiment, something that seems to be a key reason for thinking "I am".
We said that that is not only useless evidence if it comes to showing the existence of a single and enduring person, it's counter evidence. So everyone please at home ask yourself "Do I agree with this or not?" Perhaps I do not agree at all, then why not? Perhaps I agree 100% then why? And perhaps I agree somewhat, and that's very interesting. If you agree somewhat, then what? Don't just say "Yeah, that sounds pretty good", but think "Okay, so what sounds good about it? What sounds right? And what is it that if I'm reluctant to just say 'Yeah, perfect, I totally agree'. What is it that holds me back? What is it that I feel requires still some analysis?" So yeah, thank you for your patience and see you again. Thank you.
So before we start, let's read the homage, which is an homage to the teacher, the Buddha, acknowledging the Buddha is the perfect teacher. And why? Because of the teaching of dependent origination. That's what Nāgārjuna says makes the Buddha the perfect teacher, his ability to convey the meaning of dependent origination free from conceptual constructs. So we talked about yesterday that, as the sūtra says, seeing dependent origination is seeing the Dharma,"The Rice Seedling Sūtra," which you can read in English translation at the 84,000 website.
It says, "Seeing dependent origination is seeing the Dharma, and seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha." So in many ways this verse can be seen as a flawless way of going for refuge, and if we do that with a wish to learn deeply and genuinely in order to benefit an infinite amount of beings, then that's probably a flawless way of beginning this kind of session. So let's do that. And also of course when profound subject matter like this is being studied, then as you know there are traditionally a number of key points to keep in mind in terms of how one considers oneself. Like in the general context of the teachings one sees oneself as a sick person who has been afflicted by the disease of ignorance and negative emotions, and then looking for a cure one goes to the skilled doctor who is the Buddha and receives the remedy which is the teaching, and then one's application of that is taking the cure. So that's the kind of perspective that one is encouraged to assume from a general perspective. And in the context of the Mahāyāna everything that one does should be done in terms of the practice of the six pāramitās, and so also the teaching and study session, contemplation, should be within the framework of the six pāramitās. And so on, these three flaws of the vessel and so on that you all know very well, that one is supposed to stay clear of the ways of not apprehending the subject matter. So all of that stuff is good to always recollect and remind ourselves of to make sure that we can really benefit from the encounter and engagement with a profound teaching of this kind. So let's begin by reading the verses of homage. "That which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go, is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same, to the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha, I bow down." And then yesterday we spent some time talking about dependent origination in the general Buddhist context, where there's this distinction between outer dependent origination and inner dependent origination, outer dependent origination being the kind of causal dependencies that we see in the world around us, and the inner dependent origination being the way that life and death evolves and revolves based on dependencies, the twelve links of dependence arising. And we said that that dependent arising of the twelve links is based on consciousness being continuously the recipient of and the ripener of seeds of ignorance and negative emotions. And then if we talk about ignorance, some sort of mistake is implied, no? There's something that we're not aware of. Otherwise, why would we call it ignorance? And the specific type of ignorance that is pointed out in the very basic level of Buddhist philosophy is the ignorance of believing in a self that is singular and permanent and in control. So the belief that I am a single individual who remains and is in control of actions and so on. So then we said, "OK, do I feel like that? Do I believe like that or not?" We said we would sort of ponder that question and try to notice our experience, notice the way that we think and interact and so on and see whether there was a reason for saying that we have this kind of tendency
to think and believe in this way. So I would love to hear what you think about that. Thank you. So, Mikki, I think. Thank you. All good. No problem. "OK. You really asked us to kind of honestly look at our beliefs rather than just accepting what is taught. And I just spent some time yesterday just realizing that I'm looking after this sense of self 24/7. You know, I'm always looking after number one, trying to push things away or wanting things. And then I was sort of thinking about, well, you know, this sense of permanence. Do I feel that I am the same person as I was before? I can see sort of intellectually that I'm not the same. But in terms of how I think about my memories, I do feel that there is some kind of thread that's passing through. So there is a kind of difference between something experiential and my intellectual understanding. And also, actually, I think that permanence for me, my grasping at permanence is more like how I see myself in the future. Like, for example, I'm kind of worried about my pension, for example, you know, that there's going to be a me who's going to need a pension. Or when am I going to have dinner tonight? So there's always that kind of anxiety and grasping and it's exhausting. And it's continuous and it never stops. And how lovely if I could somehow let it go." Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, that's I think I know what you talk about. Yeah, it's...So, yes, certainly, then if if that is where we where we end up and thinking about this question, then it's extremely relevant. But then we might find out about this self, whatever it may be, any discovery that we may have about this self, which you said we are on 24/7. That will then be hugely relevant because it will be something that is applicable to--if that really is the case, that does that sort of orientation constantly, then it will have constant implications. whatever we find out. So that's a big part of the inquiry is trying to see how relevant is all of this stuff actually? And if it's something most things are relevant only sometimes and some things are not relevant at all in our whole life, we'll never have any real need for many things that we can nonetheless spend time on. Then there are other things that are relevant, very relevant in certain cases, like, yeah, if we know self-defense, if there's a kind of dangerous situation, then that would be hugely relevant at that particular time. But it may only be for a few minutes in our whole life and yet hugely beneficial. And then there are other things that are relevant on a daily basis, things that we need to remember and understand continuously to function. There are lots of those. But again, most of those are also things that are relevant in certain contexts and not in others, even if it's something that we need to be aware of on a daily basis. But if there's something that has implications for every moment of our existence, which is what you sort of indicated--if that is really the case, and whether that's the case is of course an open question. But we can certainly get that impression that this seems to be something that is there with me all the time. I just can't stop thinking in this way. That I'm someone who needs something, that I'm someone who needs to maintain myself one way or the other, and I'm here, the world is there. Once we begin to notice it, it's easy to get the sense that this is, yeah, it's all the time.
So, but what are other perceptions and understandings?

Okay, yeah. "So I find this idea of no-self experientially to feel true. Like if I meditate and I think about it, it seems these thoughts kind of arise without me having any agency in the matter. I meditate and this thought will pop in my head, like, "Oh, what am I going to do this weekend?" or "What will I have for dinner?" But it's not like I decided, I wanted to think that it kind of just happened. So it resonates with me that way. But then I find there's some intellectual hurdles I guess I have with the idea. I think if there's no me, then what is it that is being awakened and what is it that's understanding these truths? So I guess, you know, it's my experience with it." This sort of spontaneous, spontaneity of it, I think is very important to.. That is also why it seems so obvious that this is a truth, no? That there is an individual me, because it's not a conclusion we reach. It feels like we were born like that. But at this point we're not talking about whether that is true or not, but just whether there is such an individual once we investigate and examine, meditate and so on. We're just talking about whether we have the impression that there is such an individual. If we would say that I don't have that impression, then a lot of basic Buddhist philosophy we could say may be interesting, but it's not something that really addresses the way I experience the world. So, then how do we do with the online verses? Meanwhile, let's have another...
"So I was thinking about how right now I'm looking at you, but then I'm thinking about, oh, this seat feels a little uncomfortable or like, you know, my mind is like going in all these different directions, which are a part of like dependent, the 12 links. And like, I see it, you know, and I realize how like my perception is also like so limited in terms of like what I see, because like we don't see the entire picture. And I was just wondering, like in terms of like our conscious self, like what I'm looking at right now, and then like the subconscious of what things that I don't see, it's made me realize that like, I don't know, like I don't really understand myself. Right. Yeah, that's a very good point. Yeah, I was really like thinking about it. Yeah. And then I was thinking like, over time, like we're constantly in these like phases of like craving, you know, and then we have a thought and then we go there. We're never like just actually focusing on ourselves. So in that way, I mean, I guess that's where like, maybe we need to go towards like understanding more of like who we are. Like we don't see the entire picture. So our perception is so limited. Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking about, like a sense of self. However, our sense of self is always changing, because like, I'm not the same. I kind of am the same person, like, in some way, like, you know, physically, but I'm also different because I think, you know, our thought process changes. I think there are always like slight changes in our, with what we absorb with our experiences because we are impermanent. And then all the contact we have with different people, I feel like it transforms us. So yeah, that's my thought." Thank you. So if I heard you correctly, then part of what you said is about this sort of struggle to say, so what really do I believe? What really do I feel? And because consciousness is complex and mysterious and the world is complex and mysterious and I'm part of it, and how can I really? Okay, so what really do I mean? How really does it feel? And so on. So that can be a very relevant reaction, no? But I think nonetheless, what we aim to do here is always to not give up, so to speak, not give up in the sense of never feeling that we are not qualified. And just about the first thing you said, with the subconscious and all of that, so how can I know the subconscious? By definition, I can't. So who knows how I feel? But there is
in this context, there are enormous implications if we say something like that. What we will be getting into is a way of discussing and analyzing, enquiring, where every belief we have, every statement we make is to be taken extremely seriously. So that's something we're not used to, no? We're used to working things out, thankfully, we're used to not taking each other deadly seriously, because if we did that, we wouldn't get far. So we have to somehow figure out what each other mean as we go, and what we ourselves mean, we don't have time to really pause and ask myself, so what really do I mean now? Am I 100% sure that it's correct what I said? And so on. It doesn't happen really in our lives usually, no? But that's in itself quite interesting that it doesn't happen. But what we do now is pausing deliberately to ask exactly those types of questions. What did I just say? What did I just think? Is that a reasonable and accurate observation? Is it an accurate and a reasonable statement to make? And if we say, no it's not, then that has huge implications, then we have said something that just is not right. So that means, okay, it was mistaken, we can throw that away. What is then the right understanding? What is the right perception? And so on. So that is one of the things that is really important to keep in mind very acutely, that here we are not really discussing things, but the word analysis is also very good. Because we are really trying to figure out what we ourselves believe and what we ourselves are justified in believing. What we can believe, what we can say, all of that is really the target to figure out here. So it's a very unusual situation where the whole sort of... Even in philosophy it's hard to find that sort of rigor that this requires. Because if you have a philosophical system you have to work with it also, you have to develop it, you have to adjust it to other things. And so there's a natural sense of working together, dependent origination of philosophical systems. And you don't think the philosophical system, it may seem very rigorous, but in order to work with it we still have to sort of feel our way forward. Do you get what I'm trying to say? That it's very rare to find an occasion where you demand 100% rigor, so to speak. So that's actually what we are asking ourselves to be at this point. Not be rigorous in applying some sort of external belief system, but be 100% rigorous in examining our own beliefs, and our own perceptions, our own feelings, and so on, the whole package.
Okay, yeah. There are some responses online as well, yeah? Quite lousy, can you speak? Sorry? Should I do something?
Is anyone online speaking? "I was reflecting on, in terms of, I was trying to do a reflection yesterday, and I ended in a place of being somebody that stubbornly believes in causality and interrelation. So I just, because for me it wasn't even the question, I mean of course I feel myself as a solid entity, but it comes from this seeing everything in relation, to myself in relation, and everything out there in relation, so both the inner dependent origination and the outer, that there's kind of a stubborn view of not wanting to see things randomly appearing or spontaneously appearing, not in relation to each other. So it's like, yeah, a stubborn belief in causality, and me being the cause of things." And you being a true individual, meaning a single person? "It's funny because I use a lot of metaphors about myself, so sometimes I feel, I say this part of me or that part of me. So that's not a single person, that's a term kind of, it's a single person that has parts, right? Or having a feeling that I change, but yeah, no, there's a stubborn belief in an entity for sure of some sort. Whether it's a blob or it's made up of parts, so if any other metaphor might apply." Right. I think that's very interesting, that we can somehow, if you agree, I would say that we can somehow maintain the feeling of being one individual without thinking that it's any, yeah, it can be a blob, I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but sort of undefined something, me. And then it can also be something that we are comfortable with saying has different, one part of me says this and another part says that, so a sort of system of sorts. So that's probably how we typically think of ourselves, I am one person and I'm a sort of system of sorts too. But the main issue at this point is simply to notice whether we have that belief of being one and being someone who goes through time as the same individual. Maybe one more, let's see if there's the online thing. "Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. There is a kind of barrier between myself and others in the sense that I cannot directly experience their thoughts. I depend on conclusions from observing the first phase, from analyzing the words, but sometimes it goes wrong, obviously. So even the assumption that there are others who experience thoughts from their side, it's just an assumption which is rigorously difficult to verify or to disprove. And so I feel there is some kind of limit or barrier which may lead to the kind of definition of self or the assumption of self." Okay, thank you. So that says something about our idea of self as being something that is very fundamental. That while we cannot know really whether there is a living being in front of us or not, we could say, you know, while we cannot verify whether there are other minds in the room or not in a sort of very definitive and certain fashion, then I am here. So there is something perhaps much more obvious about that belief than the belief that you are here. And there are certainly also deep thinkers who have gone that way, you know, like in the West with Descartes' meditations, that begin by saying that, or that built on the conclusion that 'I think, so I am.' So there is something here that is undeniable and that is me. And then there are many things out there, but what they are and so forth is more difficult to say. So there is something about the belief in me that is very, or something about being me that is so irrefutably real. So that is again, if we feel in that way, then that is again evidence of whatever we may come to understand about that being me and that me that we feel so strongly exists will have huge implications, because it is something that is really foundational for us. It is something that is so fundamental and obvious to us in a sense that it cannot be questioned in the way that basically everything else can. So at this point perhaps we can then, why is it that we have this belief? Maybe here one or two replies to that, like, okay, it feels so overwhelmingly real and it feels continuous that I continue to be around in this very undeniable fashion. So why do we have that feeling? Why do we have that belief? Maybe, yeah, okay, sure. Oh, yeah, okay. Beautiful. Yeah, thank you. "Actually, I am not sure if I have a direct reflection on that one, but I think along with what I reflected yesterday, maybe I can share a little bit. So my experience would be, I somehow can experience there is like changing moments and change, like, you know, this morning I do some yoga and practice and then I go to Upala, then like this activity, right, somebody is doing that activity, but that person who is doing that activity actually changes. It does change. I do have the feeling. You know, it's different from where in a coarse level the person is different, but even in a little bit more subtle level, like when the activity is being done from the previous moment to the next one, things change, right? The breath change, the thought change and the physical action change, but then to me it seems like it's a continuum of changing moments or changing activity. So that's fine, but I do feel there is somebody who is watching, like there is something that is aware of that continuum, and that thing needs to be there, like it needs to be permanent. So therefore you ask, why do I need that, somebody who is aware of that continuum? It's because I feel if I don't have that, then there is no more ground, like there is this something that is aware of that continuum gives me safety. Like I feel like I can put my feet on it, like somebody is aware of this continuum, even though things change constantly, but then there is this thing that is aware of that change. That gives a sense of safety, groundness. So I think that's why I need it."
Yes. So that thing though is supposed to be myself. "I don't know what it is." So I guess the question is what is that thing that needs to be there? I mean we are talking about, so I guess the question for you to consider would be, is that thing yourself? "I feel that thing is something that is aware. It's not like a person, so to speak, I don't know if it's a consciousness, but it's something that is aware of all the changes that's going on, like something that watches the river flows." So that I think is very useful when there is a distinction between a person and something else, a watcher, consciousness, a process of consciousness and so on. That is very much I think what the basic Buddhist view, a distinction that the basic Buddhist philosophy wishes to make. That there is one kind of person..
that we can say certain things about, specifically that it doesn't exist, but there are many other things that we certainly don't have to say that about and actually shouldn't say that about. So, thank you. So again the key issue that we have been thinking of is, do I feel that I am one individual, a single identity, person, and someone who remains like that from one situation to the next. And now we are also thinking, so if that is the case, it seems most people say that I do think along those lines. It's not the only thought I have about myself, but it captures something very important about my own understanding of myself. I am a person, one person, not many really. I can talk about this me and that me, but it's still the same me that I am ultimately concerned with. And just as I can talk about many kinds of me, I can speak about the me as I was ten years ago and imagine me in fifteen years and say I would be a different man, I would be a different woman, but it's me nonetheless. So it seems most have that sense that that's how I feel. One, the individuality and the permanence of that individuality is certainly something that is descriptive of my way of thinking and feeling, believing and so on. So then we ask the next question, which is why do I have that strong impression and that strong belief? Oh, sorry, you had something first, no? Why don't you say it first? "I was going to answer this question, at least the way that I thought of it. So the mental landscape of things is kind of one thing. I think we can sit with the thoughts that flow by and kind of zoom out in a way that's maybe disassociating from them as being attached to a definite sense of I. But that said, the second that the body gets hungry or the body has to go to the bathroom or something like that, it all of a sudden demands an assumption of individual experience. So to me the notion of being embodied, which feels like an undeniable fact to this experience currently, no matter whether it belongs to something or not, it's very closely linked with whatever my awareness is, whatever the experience that we're all having is. And so then when it has a particular demand that is then clearly separate from other people's, or seems to distinguish itself as being something more immediate, more pressing, and more true and real than someone else's experience, then to me there's a demand of separation. And so the embodied piece is what's hard for me. And then even notions of enlightenment being private. I've heard teachers say this, that enlightenment is private. And so even after the point of culmination there seems to be an individuation that's possible and present. Otherwise there would be no distinction between one Buddha and the next, right? Which maybe we can say isn't, but in terms of the embodied teachers we have access to, there are more than one and they seem different, even if we grant the notion that they could be potentially fully enlightened."
So those are all issues that we will be, or points that we will be exploring in detail in the text, including also the teacher on the Tathagata, there's a whole chapter on that. Because that would be a classic argument to say that if you are Buddhist now, if you are a believing Buddhist, then okay, if certain great individuals can become Buddhas, then it's that individual who became a Buddha now, and that seems like solid evidence of some sort of identity, individuality. So about the body, that's also I think a very typical, we think of that as a very powerful reason for thinking of self. I think you pointed that out very well, that myself, it's very hard to have a meaningful sense of myself if disassociated with this body, or at least some form of embodied existence. Very difficult. What would that mean? To be an individual without anybody at all. So that seems to be something very strong and powerful and meaningful about the fact that there is a body, and my perception of being me is very determined by what goes on in this system. That's something I think we all must acknowledge, that there
is that, it's almost like the whole argument stops there. Like okay, I can touch you, I'm here, and what more can you say? So that's something very even profound about that observation, about the embodied nature of being an individual, of having consciousness, etc. Again, now we're talking about the reasons for our belief that I exist, and we're talking about one particular version of believing I am, which has to do with thinking that I am, I am one person, and I'm continuous, I'm constant. It's me now, just as it was me yesterday. Otherwise I would have died. If it's not me who is here today, then who should it be? It doesn't hold in the court of law, I don't know, if I say oh no, it was a different person yesterday, of course it's me again today. So that type of individual, what relation does that type of individual have to the body? So if we look at what is the body, then we're looking for something which is one constant being. Wherever we look in the physical system of the body, we find many things, right? If my body, then we think one body, of course, but we know so well that my body is not just one thing, that it's many things, right? It's something we don't, it's obvious, right, that a body has, for example, two legs, two arms, a head, and so on. And those are all different things. And of course if I look at my arm, then the arm has upper arm, lower, hands, the hand has fingers, the fingers have joints, and so on. It doesn't stop seemingly anywhere. We can begin to, with the help of science, we can investigate closer and closer. And it's like these movies that are available also now of microscopic observations, it's like a universe that opens up, seemingly as endless as the universe around us. So if that is the case, then this very strong argument for saying "I am", namely the fact of the body, seems to be a fact of something radically different than one thing. It's not just, so that which we thought would be evidence of that, or that which we take as evidence of that, is actually counter evidence. We find the opposite of what we need to find in order to be justified in having the belief that "I am one individual". And the body also, and again we can benefit very much from scientific analysis, from medicine and biology and so on, physics, we can understand that this system and its substances are in continuous change. There's nothing there that stays the same, perhaps not even for a moment. Wherever we look we find processes, the body is a living system, right? Otherwise it's a decomposing body. There's nothing there that stays the same, not even from one moment to the next. So I believe I am one person and I believe I am constant as one person. And one of my core reasons for that is this experience of being embodied. And yet what I take to be a reason that justifies this conclusion. And like before we said, there's something so strong about pointing to the body that, like I was saying, you say "I am not here, there's no single me, there's no constant me". It's very natural to feel "But hey, I just hurt my finger". Or if you say like that "Let's see what happens if I throw a glass of water in your face" and stuff like that. There's something very strong and powerful about that argument. But what we are pointing to is not only something that doesn't support our conclusion, it's something that supports the opposite conclusion. That is very bizarre, no? We take it to be a clear and powerful argument to show that I am one being who is continuous in time, or who is constant in time, and yet when I look at the evidence that I present to myself or to others, then I find not only unsuccessful or flawed evidence, I find counter evidence. So my case is actually much worse off after that. So okay, then maybe the body is not the answer. Whatever myriads of interesting things there might be to say about the body, the body has nothing to do with my... It doesn't provide any reason for my belief that I am one constant individual. But what other evidence would there then be? Now at home, please examine whether this is so. Is the body argument now dismissed as an argument for saying I am one individual, a constant permanent individual? I am one me because if you call my name, I don't have to ask myself who should answer. I am the one who hears it, and if I want to answer, I will be the one who answers. I don't have to ask anyone. We don't have to have a discussion among ourselves.
So I am one me and in the same way I also feel very naturally and we all agree and nobody will accept otherwise, even if we try to advance that position that I remain the same person from day to day, months to months. Throughout my life it is the same one me, it's my life, not many people's lives. So is it now the case that all of those beliefs have nothing to do with the body? That in the sense that we cannot find any justification for those beliefs by pointing to the body? That's what we have been concluding at this point. So please think of that carefully at home and whenever you have these sessions of inquiry. Are we really there already to be able to say that much? But if we are, then how about the other kinds of evidence that we have for having this belief in a singular and enduring person? What else is there? What would you say? Yes? "I was just thinking about this current, this teaching and learning situation and I feel that I am making an effort to pay attention. I also hope that I will learn something out of this, this in the future will be some acquired knowledge and I feel that I am in control as to how much I try to learn out of this situation." Yes, I am happy to know that. Now we are trying to see why do we have feelings and thoughts of this kind. In particular, the associated idea that you are one person who is doing this, who is studying this stuff and who has these expectations and hopes of being able to learn something. One person who will be able then to benefit in the future because you are also a constant permanent individual. That is what we are trying to look for reasons for. Why do we have beliefs of this kind? "It is a slightly different angle like this. It is not pointing to ontological evidence. It is more, I see that there is, excuse me, like, in so far as there is this belief in itself seems to just be the cause of all suffering in the world. It may also be the cause of all good in the sense that every one of us in this room only made it to this room because we believe incorrectly in a self. Take yourself for example. You have only gained all of this amazing knowledge about Nāgārjuna and Buddhist philosophy because you are operating under this misapprehension of a stable self that persists throughout time. This lady sitting right in front of me, sorry I don't know your name, but I think it is all for the best that you worry about your pension. You will indeed retire at some point and I hope that you are supported during that period. So I think there is a very profound pragmatic reason for this belief. I have never really thought of this question of why before. I have always been like, "Oh, it doesn't exist." Boom, done. I think the question is such a great question. I am so glad you asked it because I do feel like now thinking about this, "Okay, if I lost this, what else would I be giving up? Potentially everything I value." Yeah, it is a deep question and the consequences are quite daunting.
But again, this is super important to know and to acknowledge what you say. It seems like even if we say that we are getting ahead of ourselves, saying that it is a mistake, because who says it is a mistake, but if it is a mistake, then it could be a necessary mistake. That is also something that is, I think, very commonly, it is a common view to have, in particular these days, a sort of scientific perspective on consciousness and the world and to say that, yeah, it may be a construct and in that sense the self is not something that we can actually find when looking for it, beyond just acknowledging our use of such concepts. But it is very necessary to go about things in this way by having and being skilled in using, in operating with that concept of self. And if we go wrong, it can be, yeah, having no pension is a small issue, no, compared to what really can, people lose their minds, no? That is not...
again, this goes to show that we are talking about something really fundamental and it is something that whatever, again, we find out here will have pervasive implications for what there is, what we do, what we can be. But that much said, I think why it is also often, so this kind of insight can be overwhelming and the very topic can seem very intimidating, and yet we are talking only about "personal self", whether that exists or not. Quite soon we will begin to think about emptiness everywhere. So even this, the fundamental basic Buddhist philosophical point of view is very, seems to go to the bottom of so many things. However, in order to benefit from this kind of analysis, then we need to have a certain courage. So even if we don't have it, we just have to tell ourselves, okay, and I guess perhaps in that regard, maybe our experience from going to school and taking science classes, philosophy classes and so on can be helpful, because there we also know that things, we don't feel necessarily, what to say, at least I get the sense that many scientists who feel very comfortable with talking about self as being an error, don't feel that it's so intimidating. Or they feel that, okay, as you said, it's just an, did you say that you were used to thinking that it is an erroneous, so many people I think feel like that. So once we begin to feel that, oh hey man, what really is going to happen now, then we can zoom out a little bit. We can zoom out a little bit and say, okay, all I'm doing here is just looking at this idea of oneness and permanence, and I'm just trying to see is there any real justification for it? I just want to know that. And then do you see what I'm trying to say? That it's very important that we, on the one hand, we need to take in what we discover, but at this point we haven't, perhaps we haven't discovered all that much. We began to investigate the body to see if it's a good reason for, having the belief that I am one single individual. So we kind of, perhaps we are done with that investigation, we have found that it's not. Then that, if we have found that, then we just allow ourselves very gently and peacefully to acknowledge that, without any prejudice or expectation, just acknowledge what we found out. And then we can come, when that situation calls for it or invites us to continue, then we can go on to look at something else. And if we are still not there, then we keep working on our experience of the body, what a body is. Is it something that can really be seen as evidence of a single enduring thing or not? So in that case, as long as we do that, then
we have to have this kind of cool discernment. We have to have that, that gives us the courage to take the inquiry further. If we come to a point at which we think, I'm in front of something here so deep and I don't know, I dare not proceed any further, then we don't. It's quite likely that we will come to that point. But when we do, then I think there are two ways that we can go about it. Sorry, the time is running out. There are two ways to go about it. One is a call for cool and calm, where we just tell ourselves to examine and analyse carefully and calmly with clear discernment in the way that we would usually do in school when trying to understand something very well. Another thing that we can rely on if we are Buddhists is to think that this kind of analysis is something that comes in a tradition where it is associated with immense benefit. So if we have the guts to stick it out and carry through with this, then the people who present this, they talk about it as if it's something that will make all the difference in the world. So that can also give us some strength. It's not a hope that I really hope that it will help me, but it's just a certain sort of confidence that, OK, well, let me see. It's different than if we just found a newspaper talking about this stuff, or picked up a book in the library, or came across something on the Internet that seemed very disturbing. Who knows where it came from and so on. If we are believers of some sort, then we can benefit from that as well. If we have some good experience with Buddhist tradition, if we have felt and experienced something that was really good, meaningful, beautiful and so on, then we know that it comes from that source, this stuff. So that can give us the calm and also some beauty that wouldn't necessarily be there with the calm perspective. But these two things that we have to rely on in order to get the courage, which is crucial. If we don't have the courage, this won't be worth our while. So let's continue thinking of the evidence for the belief in self until tomorrow, and also specifically we talked about the embodiment, something that seems to be a key reason for thinking "I am".
We said that that is not only useless evidence if it comes to showing the existence of a single and enduring person, it's counter evidence. So everyone please at home ask yourself "Do I agree with this or not?" Perhaps I do not agree at all, then why not? Perhaps I agree 100% then why? And perhaps I agree somewhat, and that's very interesting. If you agree somewhat, then what? Don't just say "Yeah, that sounds pretty good", but think "Okay, so what sounds good about it? What sounds right? And what is it that if I'm reluctant to just say 'Yeah, perfect, I totally agree'. What is it that holds me back? What is it that I feel requires still some analysis?" So yeah, thank you for your patience and see you again. Thank you.
video
play-rounded-outline
17:25
Scroll to Top