I vow to face the truth with a photographer's words. Good morning. Today I would like to talk about self-nature. When I was an adolescent, I used to think a lot about the question, well, who am I? And a lot of adolescents have that question, or you hear them say, I want to know who I am.

[01:02]

And parents sort of scratch your heads in disarray and say, oh, what do they want? Or they say something like, well, I'll tell you who you are. Your name is so-and-so. You're the son and daughter of so-and-so. Your ancestors were so-and-so. Your ethnic and national identity is so-and-so. That's it. But usually these answers don't seem to be satisfying. They seem conventional. And the question is pointing at a more fundamental identity. On the other hand, from another point of view, the question may seem self-indulgent in some way.

[02:10]

You know, especially if you stress the I aspect of the question, you know, who am I? Or I want to know who I am. And then you sympathize with parents saying something, come on, get off it. You just are who you are, that's it. There's nothing more to it. Get too preoccupied with ourself. And usually, sometimes, especially in the West, people understand it, the question for the self this way, right? They think Zen is kind of self-centered. always focused on the self. So it's a kind of misunderstanding what we mean by self. So in this last sense, by self it's like what's meant is some unique or special object.

[03:19]

So are we wanting to be something special? other than what we already are. So in Zen we say, we all know, true self is no self. And I think this is a difficult teaching for most of us and especially for Westerners and maybe especially Americans. We cherish this idea of the individual personality. Everybody has a personality or an ego. And especially in America, what people call the ideology of individualism is a big part of social identity. The idea of the self-made man or the self-made person. There's somebody there sort of making things happen, running things.

[04:28]

And this is sort of reflected in academics also. Many times academics have a hard time with this concept of, with this Buddhist doctrine of no-self. You know, one of the big trends in psychology in the States is ego psychology. They say, well, how can you live in the world without an ego? How can you function? And so, this trend of psychology identifies the ego with what makes us be autonomous, what gives sort of stability in time to the personality so we can recognize ourself as ourself, have memory, use good judgment, be able to think rationally as opposed to irrationally or in some delusional way.

[05:47]

be able to control our aggression, be able to tolerate being frustrated, and so on. So all these are seen as functions of the ego. So, do you mean to say when you say, no ego, that nothing of this exists, well, how can you go around in the world? But in Buddhism, by no self, we don't mean the absence of any of these functions. Actually, if you look at the sutras, many of these functions are considered attributes of Buddha. So, how do we reconcile then if we see these functions of the self, or the wholesome self, as existing?

[06:58]

How do we reconcile that with the ultimate fact that there is no self? You know, we know there's Buddha, the leader of the Sangha, who organizes the forms of the practice, and seems to be a pretty together person. And yet that person is no person. So, what is he? The Sixth Patriarch says that all dharmas are inseparable from the self-nature. And that although the self is unborn and undying, it's also capable of giving birth to all dharmas.

[08:12]

Master Dogen also says, to study the Buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is to be confirmed or enlightened by all dharmas. So, So according to Zen, we don't need some special concept of the ego as an entity to describe the self. The self is just what we do, what we are in each moment. And in each moment, all these dharmas are arising. And all these dharmas are what make a human being be what a human being is. And even though we don't know exactly what the self is, we can still be it, we can still be the self, even though we don't know what it is.

[09:35]

And when we resist this activity of being confirmed by all dharmas, then we experience reality as pain. So, you know, if we have some idea of how we should be or how we would like other people to view us, then when people don't view us in that way or criticize us, then we experience pain or suffering, right? Criticism hurts. That's because we're putting some resistance to that process of being confirmed. Actually, even though people are criticizing us, they're also confirming us. So when we don't have this idea of who we are or who we should be, then it's much easier to be in harmony with people and maybe we won't be criticized or maybe the criticism won't hurt so much.

[10:53]

You know, I mean, we always have to listen to criticism, especially, you know, male teachers always criticizing us. And sometimes we get into, you know, if it hurts and we get defensive, we start thinking there's something wrong with him. And it's hard to tell, is there something wrong with me or is there something wrong with him? But actually, when we don't have this idea of who we should be in that moment, or this image of who we should have been when we did something, which then gets shut down, then it doesn't hurt, and then we can see clearly whether it's something that we're doing wrong or whether it's something that the other person needs to look at, but we don't have to take it personally.

[11:59]

Suzuki Roshi also taught that practice is, he said, practice is a narrow pointing inward toward ourselves. So usually we understand Zen as a subjective approach to reality. And yet this subjectivity doesn't include subject or object. subjectivity without any subject or object. So, But sometimes people view this subjectivity as meaning you being subjective, you being biased, you seeing things not as they are, not objectively.

[13:37]

So when in the West it's meant by objectivity, we mean true subjectivity, seeing things from the inside, from the inside out. this way, there's a shared subjectivity that we all have. And we can feel very close to one another. We can actually see what, experience what the other person is experiencing inside themselves. You know, when we practice skill like this, the sangha, especially those of us who practice here day to day together, pretty much we start knowing how each other feels or how the other person feels inside. So we have this kind of shared subjectivity without any boundary. But if we push the question further, then what is this subjectivity without a subject?

[15:01]

Who is experiencing, who is meditating? Who is experiencing selflessness or who is experiencing oneness? What is this awareness that we are? So Jung, for example, who's a... I'm drawing this reference to psychology because I'm also a psychologist and I try to see what the connection is between the field of psychology that I'm involved with and the Zen practice that I do. And the connection is not always clear. So Jung was a psychologist, was very interested in studying Zen and Buddhism. And he talks about the self as being unconscious because he can't see an awareness that has no ego.

[16:12]

If you're aware of something, it's got to be somebody there witnessing that. So if there isn't anything to witness anything, then The self then is unconscious. But in Zen, we experience and we believe in a selfless awareness. So we are aware, but we don't know what this awareness is. We don't know what the self is. So in this sense, the self is unconscious. for the ordinary mind, the self is unconscious. Although Buddha, a realized Buddha is that person who sees directly into the self nature. But if asked

[17:15]

If you ask Mel what self is, he'll say, I don't know. So that's the I don't know is common to dragons and snakes. For the ego there's always, also always the temptation of objectifying the self or identifying with the self, of saying something like, well I am Buddha or I am Christ more than, or I am God more than anybody else. And this is why I've heard that in the Catholic Church, they didn't want to make too much of the Christ within, the inner Christ, because they feared that people would identify their egos with the self.

[18:30]

You know, like you get people in the mental wards, you know, saying, you know, I am the savior, you know, or I am this or I am that. And then people try to cure them by getting two people to say the same thing, you know, because it's based on this illusion, no, it's only me. And even, you know, even Christ, made some pretty outrageous statements in the Gospels. If you read them, he said things like, in talking to the Jews, you know, of his time, he said things like, well, since I am God, I'm not bound by the law, right? Or since I'm the Lord of the Sabbath, I can do whatever I want.

[19:35]

which seems similar to me to the baby Buddha's original statement that we've all heard that the legend has it that when Buddha was born he took three steps and said the heavens above and the earth below I alone am the holy one and First time I heard that it seemed to me, oh, such an outrageous statement, so self-centered, inflated statement to make. But, you know, all these statements can be understood from a dualistic point of view or from a non-dualistic point of view, either as delusion or enlightenment. So how do we tell the difference? Joseph Campbell, I heard him quote an interpretation of this statement by D.T.

[20:49]

Suzuki, who was saying, what does this mean? What does this statement mean? And he said, well, when baby cries, when a baby cries, what does the baby say? The baby says, Heaven's worlds above, worlds below, I alone am the Holy One. So, a baby, a newborn, is in that kind of very pure, undifferentiated state of just being it, of just being that, completely what they are. And yet at the same time the baby is drawing attention to itself and to its needs, right? It's crying and the crying is for the parents to do something about it and feed the baby.

[21:55]

So the hunger of the baby is the most important thing right now. And the parents also refer to a baby, you know, like his majesty or her majesty, the baby, right? The baby is this very important person. And, you know, the baby's so cute. The baby does this, the baby does that. Everything the baby does, you know, they clap, right? So, The baby is the holy one, the most important one. And this feedback that a baby gets from the parents gives the baby a sense of security and well-being. We see this first thing they sense they have of the parent is this smiling original face. this not very well-defined face that's smiling.

[23:04]

And then pretty soon they start smiling. So that's the non-dualistic side. Dualistic side is that pretty soon the baby becomes an object of desire for the parents. So the baby becomes an object and the baby starts recognizing itself in all the ideas that the parents have about this baby in their minds. So I think this is the way the false view of self as object begins. And then we're always looking for the image in the mirror to fit how we think other people should view us or how other people view us.

[24:05]

And we alienate ourselves in this image. And we try to pursue ourselves as some special kind of image or some special kind of object. The way Mel taught me to think about this statement of Buddha is that I alone means that at one with everything. So also in that light, what Christ said could be interpreted as, since he was at one with everything, he was not bound by the law.

[25:22]

So he wasn't bogged down by it, weighed down by it. But if you think it means I can break the precepts, I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, in a partial way, then that's delusion. And that's what the Jews criticize Christ for, because they view Him as coming from that place. coming from the place of ego, what do you mean you are the only son of God, you know? Or what do you mean that you can do whatever you want and you're not, you don't have to do these forms or these practices? So I'm not sure, you know, it's a tricky question. Is it, who was viewing dualistically?

[26:25]

You know? Are the Jews right or is Christ right? That's the kind of koan. And, you know, we also, in Zen, we also always, recently, especially in America, we've been talking a lot about the meaning of the precepts and the Mahayana versus the Hinayana way of interpreting them. And sometimes people think the Mahayana way of interpreting precepts is that, you know, that once you're a Zen master, then you can do whatever you want. You know, you can get drunk. It's the beat Zen. Mahayana Zen is the beat Zen, right? Alan Watts style. You can get drunk, have lots of affairs, you know. So that kind of being liberated in that kind of way, Whereas the Mahayana way is how do we, it being one with everything, then we naturally observe the precepts and we're not bogged down by them, have this kind of petty, small, letter of the law kind of attitude, you know, that kind of critical of yourself and critical of others and so on.

[27:56]

But at any rate, it seems that we have to go through this alienation of having this false view of ourselves as ego and pursuing this image in the mirror before we can know liberation. And just like a baby needs to be desired and loved, And yet that very desire and that very love may lead to this false view of self as object. So we need to go out the same door that we came in into the world of samsara. So instead of being drowned by the image reflected in the water, or being drowned by the image in the mirror, we become the water and the mirror itself.

[29:14]

So to me that's very interesting. It's the same thing that can go one way or the other. the selfless object, the narcissist looking at himself in the mirror, and Master Tozan understanding reality by seeing his image reflected in the water. I think that's all I have. I'm going to open it up now for questions or discussion.

[30:20]

Yes? I was struck by your question, how can you have subjectivity without subject or object? That's a really good question. Yes. Subjectivity that includes everything, but then we've got to really mess around with our personal past.

[32:33]

We can't get away from it. Right. Well, at least, you know, at least we're aware of it, you know, so we're not deluded within delusion. Right? I mean, we know that that's what's happening. We know that it causes us pain to have this, interpose this object about who we are in between us and the world and people. And yet, you know, it's hard to get rid of it. You know, so it's a process in which we're there. But at least we're aware of it. Yes? I'm not sure this... For example, when a person is helping them, how do you see them working together?

[34:02]

Well, I mean, both have to do with awareness and subjectivity and understanding inter-subjectivity. When you're relating to somebody, what comes up for them and what comes up for you is interrelated and interdependent. Do you see these processes as two somewhat different, but maybe necessary, both kinds of inquiry? Yeah, well, it's not the same. I mean, it's a different kind of practice, you know, but I find it a natural extension of zendo practice.

[35:07]

You know, this practice of just sitting there and being aware, listening. You know, kind of practice of listening and patience. you know, and sort of listening to what somebody else is saying and observing what's coming up in you. So I think it's very, it's helpful for, Zazen is, it's helpful for a psychotherapy, for a psychotherapist, to be a good therapist. I want to say a little bit more about what Larry mentioned about pain that we have and this issue about self and non-self.

[36:11]

In my practice, I am aware of the emptiness of self and that really helps me. and then the compassion come up. And I was able to let go of my pain because I was aware, it's a reverse process to me. And I think that's the benefit that I learned from sitting. And I also studied psychology, and so personally I feel like because I do both, the reverse of the cycle, especially the process that I was able to empty the person's pain and in the past it would hold on to the anger and resentment of the days, but now it's like hours

[37:33]

You know, sort of going back to what you were saying also, it's like in Sazen and in Sashin, we experience pain because of how we would like the Sazen to be, right? So it's the same thing, sort of ego gets in between. We can't be one with just sitting. So we experience that as pain or suffering, right? But we can just let that pain kill us. You know, the same way that when we feel criticized by somebody, we can just let that criticism, even though it hurts, we just let it kill us completely. So, becomes some kind of what?

[39:15]

Caring. Go from pain into sensitivity that you expressed that maybe somebody else is also. Yes? Sometimes when lecturers talk about self and no self, there comes up a thing that sounds a little bit like there's a that they exist simultaneously. And my own sense is that you don't get rid of the bad self, that it's just both there simultaneously and it becomes larger and larger and larger. And, you know, if somebody is delusional and they think that they're sacred, in some ways that's true.

[40:23]

So, I'm not sure it's separate. Well, it's separate in the sense that one causes suffering and the other one doesn't. But the suffering is sort of the ground. So, what I'm saying is that I don't see it as sort of this thing over here that has to be gotten rid of. I see that it's all simultaneous. I think I understand what you're saying. More that good and bad, you know, we usually call it true and false. False because it's some idea that we have that doesn't exist, that's not there and that causes us a lot of trouble. Yes. Well, I guess, you know, the difference is if you think that you're the only one, you know, but if you see everybody else is having Buddha nature, being Buddha, then that's different.

[41:41]

that in one case you're putting yourself separate from other people and you're putting something in between you and other people and you're sort of raising yourself above other people. I understand Shakyamuni had a difficult time And he tried to tell them, try to get this done. But they weren't buying into it. Because as far as they were concerned, he quit. Because they were sex and they were doing the thing to do. And they just assumed that he just kind of hopped out and went off and just sat down with the tree and quit.

[42:52]

And he couldn't get them to... Don't you hear a difference? Don't I seem different? So he slowed them down a little bit, and they really started to look, and they started to see that something had changed. And then that started to open up a little bit. So you can say, well, yes, he was correct. Things do fall into place. You can say things and mean it. It doesn't have to cancel because somebody else has another opinion. So it's really tricky.

[43:56]

Well, I mean, I guess I don't picture Buddha saying, you know, I am Buddha, you know, and because I'm the enlightened one, all of you come and follow me. I think his first reaction was that he didn't want to teach, right? Because people wouldn't understand him. Right. And then he decided to teach in order to help all such sentient beings. So that's still different, you know. Can you say something? Yeah.

[45:54]

Nobody helps people like I do. Alan, did you want to say something? Actually, it was kind of covered by what she was saying. Yes?

[47:00]

I think the most frustrating thing for me, in coming to grips with all of the things that we've talked about this morning, and yet, in a sense also the most screaming one, is that for me it's always come down to broken truth. No matter how much we seem to bat around self and no-self, you go now, you go, the coexistence of things, it just always seems to come down to Because we don't know. I guess that's the cool one, saying we're different.

[48:04]

Mm-hmm. Yeah. But if you lose track of that form as emptiness, then you can get weighed down by form. You become caught in form. So it's like being able to accept both of them. Mm-hmm. And if you think that emptiness is something else separate than form, then form is form. That's what it is. But if we get too caught up in form and think that that's all there is, become self-righteous about forms, then we lose track of that form is emptiness. You know, it's something that I always was struck with, Mel, that although the beginning of this form seems so formal, you know, and so rigid in some ways to me at the beginning, that the sense of freedom with which he did it... Yes?

[50:02]

How do you practice no-self? Well, the one example that I've been... that I've mentioned today, that I've been... something I've been working on is that how to deal with Criticism. So no self there is just listening. Because sometimes we see, oh, here it comes, here they're going to start criticizing us, and we start putting this barrier, and we don't really listen to what they're saying, and we have some idea what the person is saying, but it's really not what they're saying, so we respond to what we think they're saying, And when we respond to them with what we think they're saying, they say, I'm not saying that at all.

[51:13]

You're not listening. And then we get kind of stuck. So no self in that situation is OK. Not getting defensive and listening. So you let go of your ego. or what I think that the other person is saying, you know, or that I think, oh, they're saying this because they really, you know, want to do this to me, or they're really trying to put me down, or they really have an ax to grind, or whatever. You know, sort of get rid of the explanation and just see it for what it is. saying, well, what do I have?

[52:50]

that I need to defend, that's kind of an elaboration of the process that I try to use. I think that is a practice of no-self. Yeah, we're trying to defend this concept, this idea that we have of ourselves, that we feel is being injured in that moment. And why does it really matter what's really being injured? Yes. What I'm doing is similar to what Ellen's expressed, that I, even if it comes up now, I kind of break it, if it's an emotion or anything, that there's just no one behind this to feel that.

[54:16]

Because if I can break it down, that it is no such thing as there's no one here, but this is all I hear this thing and maybe hear this thing. It's not always happening, but when it happens over and over again, it's hard to remember. Those things are useful, but there are times when people actually, for one reason or another, attack. And they really are attacking. And it is sometimes, it's good to try to say, well, what's being attacked doesn't matter, etc. Another thing I was hearing what you were saying, I think, is that maintaining a state of absorption or concentration is part of it.

[55:22]

And if that's true, then if somebody attacks you and you're in pain, it may be better to stop there and just be in a state of concentration. In that state, it feels to me like things begin to melt down. To stop there? Yeah, instead of getting angry. whatever the feeling is, because there are people who will attack you. Yeah, I mean you can stop it and kind of walk away from the situation, or you can just stay there silently, or you can say how you're feeling.

[56:43]

Just stay with the fact that something is hurting you. I'm saying that in quotations because there are a few issues that come up when people are talking about practice. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that another practice or another possible practice is to try to stay in a concentrated state. Whatever is there. Right. Yeah. I think that's something where the practice of zazen is helpful. Gradually, you get clearer about what's going on and not so confused about what they're saying and how you're feeling. It's kind of a morass that's hard to make sense of. So you can see the process clearer and react, perhaps, to what you understand. Yeah, because you have to also respond in some way.

[57:52]

You know, it's not a matter of being only submissive, you know, or just let yourself be beat up in some way. So... Time? Okay.

[58:12]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ