Understanding that which is taken for self as not self

-




[A. Sujin] Can there be the explanation of what is that which is taken for self? Where is it, what is it?

[Marc] It's a strong inclination from within, so there's a lot of protest against the letting go of the self.

[A. Sujin] But from hearing again and again of the truth, what it is and understanding that which is taken for self as not self little by little, it will let go very gradually the idea of self which clings to whatever is there as I all the time no matter it is seeing hearing liking... whatever is there when it's not known it's I all the time. But to think over it, considering it: if seeing does not arise at all, can there be "I see"? So, who can make seeing to arise? But there must be conditions for its arising because since no one can make it arise and it cannot arise by itself, but there must be conditions, so it's arising. So, it arises and falls away because there's not seeing all the time, We take it, in a day, hearing smelling tasting touching thinking seeing, that's all in a day, no matter what day. Only six doorways, six different objects: one which can be seen, the other can be heard and the other can be smelled, tasted, touched and thinking about that which has shown up as something experienced by that which arises to see it, to hear it. And where are they now? All gone, completely, never to return. So, in reality, what can the [the] I be, at all? It's gone completely, never to return. This moment it is "I hear" and then it's gone, "I see" it's gone, nothing can last at all.

[Marc] Yes, that's very enlightening, and still though this fear of following that reasoning because it's sort of fearing, the self, and that's fearful, trying to see what the mind allows me to see.

[A. Sujin] Seeing is mind too.

[Marc] I don't see the mind, but I see the protest, I see the aversion and I see the fear.

[A. Sujin]: So the question is what is meant by mind and seeing.

[Marc] Yes, it is it is clinging to self, I can see that, so intellectually I see that it must be mind with aversion and mind with lobha and mind with fear.

[A. Sujin] But if seeing does not arise and mind does not arise, can still there be mind and seeing? So, mind is not permanent... Seeing is not permanent... Can the seeing now rise again, to be the same one? So, it's gone completely, never to return at all. So where's the I?

[Marc] The I is in the clinging to self, in the fear.

[A. Sujin] It's thinking, right? It's not seeing, it's not hearing. So, how come the idea of I if there's no reality which experiences an object?

[Marc] Can you repeat the question?

[A. Sujin] How can there be the I if there is no reality which experiences an object?

[Marc] No there can't be the I if there's no reality there cannot be either way.

[A. Sujin] So, actually, is what is taken for I that which experiences an object?

[Marc] I suppose that's what's being taken for an I.

[A. Sujin] Because usually we think that "I see", right? But if seeing does not arise, never arises, can there be "I see"? So, what is taken for I? Can we say seeing hearing smelling tasting touching, when it arises and experience an object, only. Because you see that seeing experiences an object, right? Visibile object. And thinking experiences thought or idea of something, right? But if these two, or the reality which arises to experience does not arise at all, never arises, can there be "I"? So we take that which experiences that as "I" because not understanding the truth of it. What conditions its arising is not known at all, so, when it's there and no understanding of it as it is: just being conditioned to arise and then falls away instantly, never to return. And how can that be the I? Because the idea of I is so very permanent. Always I all the time, not understanding that what is taken for I is the reality which arises and experiences an object and falls away instantly, from moment to moment.