Suññata, what is that which is not me

(Suitable for beginners) - Vincent: A friend asked a question about Anattalakkhana sutta, where the Buddha says: this is not me, not mine, this is not my atta, and she says that maybe there's still "I" somewhere, it's just the khandhas that are not me, not my atta.

A. Sujin: Because we're used to remember the words, but what about the characteristic or the truth? For example "this" is not me, "this" is not mine, what is "this"? We just go across "this", thinking that we understand what "this" is, but actually we have to consider what does "this" mean, what is that "this", what is "this" that we've heard it's not me, what is that? There must be "this", which is not me, which is not mine. So, what is that "this"? Otherwise it's not [considering] carefully enough, to condition right understanding, which needs to be so very sharp and very deep to understand "this" as not self or not me or mine. So it's not just "this is not mine", but what is "this"? The answer is there.

When you use the word "this", how many are there? One or two or three? How many?

V. She mentioned one.

Su. Okay, so "this is not me, this is not mine", what is that "this"? Otherwise how can one know what is that? So what is that which is not me, is not mine, that which is "this"?

V. Seeing now it's not me, not mine.

Su. Okay, can seeing belong to anyone? Because it's no more, after it sees, it arises just to see only, sees and then gone, is that not true? Where is the seeing of just a moment ago? When there is hearing there's no seeing! So where's gone, the seeing of just a moment ago? Can anyone find it? Is it still there?

V. It's not there anymore.

Su. So it does not belong to anyone at all, because it's completely gone, like the fire, once extinguished no one can have it back. So, is it right or wrong to take that which is now seeing as "I see" or "it's me" or "it's mine"?

V. It's not right.

Su. Nothing belongs to anyone, seeing does not belong to anyone because it's gone completely. So, what are the others "this"?

V. Like a hearing is gone, sound is gone.

Su. So, is it clear now that whatever is there, gone! it cannot be taken for anything at all, it doesn't last at all, and it is no one, and it does not belong to anyone, right? Because it's no more, completely gone, suññata. Consider this, whether you can find what can belong to "me" or what can be taken for "I". Because there must be more confidence of the truth, the truth is the truth, otherwise there cannot be enlightenment of the truth of what we used to take for "I" at all. So, no matter we talk about whatever is there in one's life or even now, it's just like this, it has arisen by conditions and gone completely, everything which arises has to fall away. So at moment when there is the idea "I see", it's gone! so, where's the "I", no more at all. That's why it's gone forever, so it cannot come back, not "me" at all. So the point is to listen carefully about the truth of whatever is there, in order just to have more confidence of the truth, and the confidence will let go of the idea, wearing away the idea of self, by itself, by sankhara khandha, no one at all. It's only those realities which the Buddha pointed out that are there, citta and cetasikas, different kinds. As long as there is still ignorance, can "that" be known as not-self? Impossible, because of not understanding the truth, the characteristic which is there by conditions and then gone completely, never thought about that, so there must be the idea of self all the time, as long as there is no right considering about that which is now appearing. How deeply rooted the ignorance and attachment, it's there, accumulated from long long time ago. So it's not easy to let go the idea of self, it has to understand "this" when it's there, only "this", not the other, because the other does not appear. Without more confidence it's impossible to have conditions for direct understanding of that which is now appearing as usual, as natural.