1.1 All laws have no self

(I), is the body me? If the body is me, which part of the body is me? Can you find it? In the hands, feet, or head? Neither. People without hands talk about me; people without feet also say they have me, so which part of my body am I in? You look for it in your body, look for it, and finally you will find it, and you are very sure that "I" is no longer in your body. Since it's not in the body, maybe "I" is outside? That's even more impossible. Why? Because you can't control what's outside your body. For example, this cup is outside your body, and you can't make the decision. You can't ask for it, so it's not me. I'm not outside or inside. Is it in the middle of the body? Do you have it? No. We can't find it inside, outside, or even in the middle, so "I" is not this body, and this body is not me.

(II) Is the heart me? Some people think that since this body is not me, then this mind that can think and know is "me"! Have you ever thought so? Some people think that our heart practice, this body is fake, so the heart pretends to use the body to practice, this heart is real, and it is "me". Is this correct? Let's take a look: thoughts can be divided into previous thoughts, after thoughts and present thoughts. The mind of the past has been extinguished; for example, your heart has just listened to what I said, and the heart of the past has been destroyed, so "I" is not the past thought. The "I" mentioned above is unchanged. Since it will die, it is certain that the previous thoughts are not me; the heart of the back thoughts has not been born. Since it has not been born yet, it is certain that it cannot dominate the current thoughts, so our previous thoughts and after thoughts are not me. So it should be the current reading, right?

Buddha often describes our hearts as a waterfall, like running water, and it has been thinking about it. Our hearts are like running water. They are both born and destroyed and cannot be independent. As a metaphor: when the eyes see something red, their hearts think of red; if they see something blue, they think of blue, and it can't help you! Because what you think is sometimes affected by the outside world, you are dragged by troubles and can't make the decision. For example, if someone scolds you, you will curse back when you are upset, and you can't make the decision at all. You can't decide what our hearts are now. Since you can't be the master, you are not the master, so "I" is not the heart now.

(III) Is there a "me" outside the body and heart? The body and mind are not "me", so who is the "me"? We can't find "me" in the body (material activities) and mind (spiritual activities). Maybe some people think that there is a "me" outside the body and heart. Do I have this? Who is it? If there is really such a "me", which is not spiritual, immaterial or physical, does it have any troubles? I can tell you for sure that if there is such a "me", it must not be troubled. We have all kinds of troubles because our body and heart are active, so we know that this "I" has a lot of troubles, but it is impossible for the non-heart, non-thing, non-body "I", to have troubles. If there is a me without worries outside my body and heart, then you are already relieved. But you are not free now, so don't fantasize that there is another "me" outside the body, mind and matter, which controls our body and heart. If there is, it is not you.

In Buddhism, there are two kinds of people who are attached to "I": one, there is a "I" in the body and mind of the five aggregates; the other, the body and mind of the five aggregates is "I". As mentioned just now, these two are not "me", neither body and mind are "me"; there is no "me" other than body and mind, so "I" does not exist. Judging from the above reasoning, there is no detached "I" or "I" inside or outside the body.

Buddha said that the body and mind of all sentient beings are the result of the aggregation of many causes. Since we have various karma in the past, they form our current body and mind, so it is an aggregation. In terms of Buddhism, it is the five meanings: color, acceptance, thinking, action and knowledge. Sex is the body; receiving, thinking, doing and knowing are both the heart. The five aggregates are the body and mind. The Buddha said that it is the result of various causes and harmony, and there is no entity called "I", but we call this body and mind "I". This does not mean that there is a "I" in the body and mind, nor does it mean that there is a "I" in the body and mind, and we call it "I", which is "pseudonym me". After we give every thing a name, we think it is real. But the Buddha said no, it was fake. It was just a name, and the pseudonym "I" was the same. In this name, there was no entity. But we mortals regard this pseudonym as "I persist" and call it "I persist". We should now understand that the so-called "I" turned out to be a kind of obsession. What does "persistence" mean? Let me make a metaphor: if someone smokes, he slowly becomes addicted to smoking and is obsessed with cigarettes; if we keep teaching a person "I" and "I"...; if this body is me and this heart is me, then it will be persistent and think that this "I" is real, and it will stick to this "I", which is called "I". Because of this "I persist", we have all kinds of troubles. That's how I came from, so the Buddha told us that "all laws have no self". The Buddha told us that there is no real "me", but the five aggregates can be called "pseudonymous me". The Buddha also used this "I" and even said "if I heard it" in the first sentence of the Buddhist scriptures, but we should clearly confirm that it is only a name and has no entity, so it is called "pseudonym me".

In order to have a deeper understanding of "the laws have no self", we have to understand what "self-vity" is. Anything in the world often maintains a certain appearance and lets us know its existence, which is called "law". Everything we see, hear or touch is a "law"; if we want to know these "laws", we have to give it a name. After that, we adhere to these "laws" and think that it is true and real. For example, rain: the sky is covered with dark clouds, and when it rains, you think there is rain in the world. Is there an entity in this rain? No." Rain is just water. When the water on the ground is illuminated by sunlight, it becomes water vapor; water vapor rises to the sky and is called clouds; clouds float around in the air, and when they encounter cold air, they condense into water droplets. The more water droplets gather and heavier and heavier, they fall from the sky, forming rain. Because of this effect, you can feel the existence of rain. So give it a name. Under this name, you think there is "rain" dripping. Is there really something called rain in the world? Not at all. Those drops fall to the ground and become rivers, streams, and finally the water you drink. We insist that all the "laws" in the world have a complete body. It maintains a shape, and you think it is a real existence, and I insist on the same.

There are two kinds of "I stick": one, I stick to people; two, I stick to law. "I" is not only a person who is attached to a sentient being in the world for me. In fact, there is nothing other than the body and mind, but we think that there is a person - me; it is also a person who is not attached to the body and mind, not the body or the heart, which is called "man and me"; in addition, we also have an attachment to the "law" and think that it has its own nature, for example, We insist that there is a sun, the sky and the earth between heaven and earth, which is the so-called "law enforcement". And the body and mind (law) that we adhere to the five implications are real, so it is called "the law and I hold"; "I insist" causes us to think that there is me in the world, so I can't get it, and I don't have it. Let me make a metaphor: What is the name of the pig in your house? Assuming that your family doesn't have a pig at all, it must have no name, right? So you don't have this me in your heart, but you give it a name called "I", which is not like this in this world; there is no me at all in our physical and mental world, and the Buddha also told us that there is no self, which is true truth. If you don't believe it, you can look for it from the body, mind and mind to see if it exists? As a result, you can't find it. If you can't find it, you still think there is. At that time, we were stupid and persistent, so the Buddha told us that "the Dharma has no self", which is the second seal of the three Dharma seals.

The difference between "doing" and "law" in "all laws are impermanent" and "all laws without self" is that: "all laws" refer to the law of creation; "laws" include the law of creation and without creation. In this world, the law can be divided into two types: the law of indoing and the law of incompetence. The law is that we confuse and create, and it is impermanent, so it is said that the works of creation are impermanent. The law ofwei is impermanent, and the law of incompetence (Nirvana) is neither constant nor impermanent; in this law of Nirvana, there is no me. The "law" of the law includes the law of action and the law of nothingness, and the impermanence of the law only includes the law of law. Because Nirvana is unmade - there is no way to do it, and it is also selfless. The impermanence of all laws is wrong, and all the impermanence is right, because some are impermanent, and some laws (nirvana) are not constant or impermanent, so the impermanence of all actions does not include Nirvana. If Nirvana is impermanent, it is wrong. So we can't say that all laws are impermanent, we must say that all laws are impermanent. But we can say that there is no self in all laws, which is certain that there is no me in all laws of doing or in doing nothing. But not to say that all deeds have no self, all deeds must have no self, and all laws also have no self. Therefore, all laws without self includes all laws without self, but all laws are impermanent, and all laws are not necessarily impermanent