so I'm going to give you my answer is the true self permanent or not both statements are wrong hello everybody it's Jason and I'm here answering your questions about Zen meditation your practice life any kind of question today's question question is about true

self is it permanent or not let me read this question for you hi Jason I have a question Ramana Maharshi talks of Atma as the true self as an awareness of all things never born and never dies this is our true self our unchangeable permanent

itself but on the other hand Buddha talks of the same awareness but says there is not a permanent unchangeable awareness How can there be one person that says our true nature is unchangeable but another says there is not a permanent unchangeable self this

is a very interesting question and it comes up quite often when you hear this term true self you'll hear this in a lot of different spiritual traditions but this true self and the idea of myself are not the same so I can think I'm a

father I'm a musician I am a teacher if you take those things away and in this moment then what am I another thing I want to point out is I can't verify what the Buddhist said or what Ramana Maharshi said and it really doesn't

matter in the school I teach in the Quantum School of Zen before our retreats we recite the temple rules and there's one temple rule that states when listening to the words of a Zen teacher keep your mind clear don't attach to the

Words let go of your thinking and pierce the true meaning of the words and really that's the most important thing to keep in mind is different people need to hear different things according to their mindset. Often teachers, especially Zen teachers, will use words to hit the

students' minds. Another way of saying that is teachers will use words to challenge someone's idea or belief because most of us are very attached or clinging to our ideas and beliefs. Once a monk approached Zen master Joju and asked, "Does a dog have Buddha

nature?" So Buddha nature is another way of saying true self. Joju responded, "Moo." Now, if you translate that, it means "no." So a dog does not have Buddha nature. That's very interesting because when the Buddha was teaching, he said everything has Buddha nature. Now, he

didn't use this word "Buddha nature," but we can say everything is already clear and pure. So why did Joju say that to this monk? Perhaps this monk was very attached to this idea of everything has Buddha nature. So, asked Joju, "Does a dog have

Buddha nature?" And Joju's words struck his mind and completely opened him up. After reading this, though, I wonder why do we want to know these kinds of things? Is this really going to help our lives? Because people are going to argue about the true self being permanent or

not. Heck, people even argue about what the true self really is. So what is it that we are looking for? What do we want? I think a lot of the times, as we depend too much on our understanding, thinking that's going to help us make us complete, to help us really experience

This true self, but from my experience and also talking to many others, this kind of thinking only leads to confusion. So when listening to the words of the Zen teacher, keep your mind clear, don't attach to the words. So I'm going to give you my

answer: is the true self permanent or not? Both statements are wrong. Now even saying that has a mistake in it because that means I'm about to say something that is right. Do you see where all of this thinking gets us? It gets us really confused. So I'm going to try to make

this as simple as possible. So right now, in this moment, take away permanent and impermanent, take away true self. Then what is left? Did you hear that bird chirping? Everything is already clear. Our true self has already appeared. So I'm going to leave you with a

I sometimes do this in my videos. Earlier I mentioned the Buddha said everything has Buddha nature, but Joju said a dog does not. So which one is correct? Be careful if you say one is correct, then you are spinning around in the world of delusion. If you say one is not

correct, you lose your life. So how can you answer? Don't touch any of this BS. Then the answer will appear by itself. And that is something that can truly help your life. I hope this video was helpful. You can let me know by liking this video, subscribing to my

channel, put a comment down below. Also if you have any questions about Zen meditation, your practice life, any kind of question, you can also put that down in the comments or email me: jasonjasonquinzen.com. And perhaps your question will be in one of my future videos. Okay.

Everyone, I hope you're all doing well and I will see you very soon.

Your True Self: Beyond Permanence and Impermanence

Jason Quinn Zen

진정한 자아에 대한 질문: 영구적인가, 무상한가?

라마나 마하르시의 견해: 변하지 않고 영구적인 진정한 자아로서의 아트마.

붓다의 대조적인 견해: 영구적이고 변하지 않는 인식은 없습니다.

진정한 자아와 지각된 자아(역할, 정체성)의 구분.

개인적인 해석의 중요성 및 특정 가르침에 대한 집착을 피하세요.

선의 가르침은 문자 그대로의 해석을 넘어선 이해를 강조합니다.

예시적인 일화: 개의 부처 본성에 대한 질문에 대한 조주의 답변.

스님의 질문: 개에게도 불성(참나)이 있습니까?

조주의 대답: "무"(아니오), 모든 것에는 불성이 있다는 부처님의 가르침과 대조되는 대답입니다.

조주가 모순적으로 보이는 대답을 한 목적은 스님의 개념에 대한 집착에 도전하는 것이었습니다.

영적인 문제에 대한 지적 이해의 한계.

진정한 자아의 영속성에 대한 무의미한 논쟁.

이해에 지나치게 의존하면 직접적인 경험을 방해합니다.

화자의 결론: '영구적'과 '비영구적'은 모두 틀린 표현입니다.

발표자의 솔루션: 개념을 넘어선 직접적인 경험.

'영구적', '무상', '진정한 자아'와 같은 개념을 버리세요.

진정한 자아는 지금 이 순간에 이미 존재합니다.

결론: 지적 함정을 피하고 직접적인 경험을 수용하세요.

'정답' 또는 '오답'에 집착하는 것은 위험합니다.

답을 찾기 위해 지적 논쟁을 버리는 것의 중요성.