A subscriber called “Country Man in the Mountains” asked whether it is appropriate for a Buddhism that should be rigorous about non-self to participate in the fashion for finding a true self. Since video does not provide an easy live dialogue, I will first state my own thought. Others can consider it and disagree.
The Korean expression “true self” can be written as jin-a, literally the real I. The word I have consistently used instead is non-self, the absence of an I. I have avoided discussing true self whenever possible, and there is a reason.
Buddhism releases; it does not manufacture another thing
In the early Dharma, Buddhism is a path of letting go. It releases attachment, mistaken concepts, wrong thought, and religious craving, and ultimately releases attachment to me. Impermanence says that nothing remains constant; non-self says that no fixed I exists. These terms do not establish a new object. They loosen what is already grasped.
“True self” changes the structure. The phrase implies that the person I now call me is false and that another, real I exists elsewhere. The final condition intended may be the same as non-self, and a teacher who directly understands a particular disciple’s blockage may use it as an individual skillful means. But when it is announced to the public, a new definition of the true self becomes necessary.
Even after hearing, “It is neither this nor that, and you should not travel somewhere to find it,” people first assume that a true self exists. Words such as “a journey to find myself” and “Where did I come from, and where am I going?” follow. The listener begins seeking another self.
Language activates the religious concepts already carried by the listener
Ask a nonreligious person where one comes from and goes, and the answer may be that one’s parents met and created a life that returns to nature at death. Ask someone who believes in Buddhist rebirth, and an intermediate being, the six realms, and another life may appear. A Christian may think of a soul coming from somewhere and going to heaven or hell.
The same question activates different inherited beliefs. The discussion then asks whether there must be an enduring I connecting the person two years ago with the person next year, although body, knowledge, and memory all change, and whether that I survives death. The word true self summons soul and afterlife back into the room.
The search for true self moves opposite to Buddhist release
A person who believes that a true self literally exists and searches for it loses the Buddhist direction. Even when it begins as a skillful means, the audience asks, “Is this the true self? Is that it?” Someone eventually identifies an experience, declares that the true self has been found, and assumes awakening. The fires of greed, anger, and ignorance may remain, yet the person thinks the work is complete.
The Buddhist aim is nirvana, the complete extinguishing of affliction and release of everything. Constructing and grasping a new object moves in the opposite direction.
Some genuinely awakened people use terms such as true self, protagonist, or Buddha-nature with great caution. Their manner may communicate that ego has been released. I am not denying the final condition they intend. The problem is that, when the verbal path is taught to a general audience, many listeners move away from non-self.
A skillful means that attracts the public can eventually replace the truth
One may argue that non-self is difficult while a search for true self draws people in. Korean Mahayana history, however, shows where attractive means can lead. A Buddhism seeking awakening became a religion believing in the six realms, Buddhas of the three times, Amitabha, Avalokiteshvara, and supernatural powers. What was called a temporary means hardened into the central truth.
A teacher speaking directly to one disciple and responding to that person’s character differs from a phrase distributed in books, videos, and public sermons without its original relationship. The Buddha also adjusted his teaching to the social position, character, and capacity of each listener, so some statements may look inconsistent. Modern media records and replicates the words apart from that audience. The distinction between means and core can disappear.
If Buddhism says to release but the word true self makes people seek another entity, the means is hazardous. Although everyone may want freedom from suffering and a happy life, we should choose a method with fewer opportunities for misunderstanding.
My first awakening came through impermanence
I speak firmly because I traveled this detour myself. What I regard as my first awakening, an entry into stream-entry, came through hearing about impermanence. The explanation was that life hurts because I do not understand the world’s impermanence and therefore cling.
As in the Buddha’s analogy, a heavy stone thrown into water sinks. No amount of prayer to the Buddha, God, or Avalokiteshvara makes it float. Oil, by contrast, rises. Conditions do not change merely because I desperately want another result. Aging, illness, death, and separation from those we love occur within an impermanent world.
Hearing this caused the things to which I clung to appear at once, and my mind became light. I was around twenty-one when that first awakening occurred.
My father’s question “Who are you?” sent me on a thirty-year detour
Afterward my father asked, “Who are you?” I could not answer. I had seen something of impermanence but had not fully penetrated non-self. I then spent my life asking who and what I was, where I came from, where I went, and how I should live. I began with impermanence but entered something like a true-self search. For roughly thirty years, through my father’s death and beyond, I wandered before returning to non-self.
What if non-self had been explained directly then? Perhaps I could have observed impermanence more deeply, followed it straight to non-self, and used concentration to calm the mind whenever needed.
My father recited the Heart Sutra’s “form is emptiness, emptiness is form,” yet also searched for a protagonist and thought that he was the center and the world ended with his death. Words had carried him elsewhere because emptiness and non-self had not been seen directly. If I could speak to him again, I would ask why one should wander when one can go directly to non-self.
For whom do direct pointing and hwadu meditation work?
The true-self route requires new definitions of the true self, the ordinary self, and the path between them. But how many people hear “directly point to mind, see nature, and become Buddha” and awaken immediately? Those who do not understand may suspect their intelligence and remain blocked despite repeated listening.
Hwadu meditation uses a method related to intense concentration. If doubt is concentrated like an impassable wall and joined with insight, it can be a complete and excellent method. Yet I question whether it is the best general practice for ordinary people living everyday lives. A structure in which awakening must be certified by a master and cannot be spoken openly also develops around it.
If the condition attained through non-self is called the true-self condition, why not simply proceed through non-self? Negative language may feel difficult, but observing what exists and releasing it is faster than creating another name.
True self can become an instrument of mysticism and deception
Someone may declare that the true self has been found, then speak like an omniscient seer about cosmic mysteries, former lives, afterlife, Buddhas of the three times, and rebirth. When a misleading concept is built into the structure, someone can use it to dominate and deceive people.
Other religions can point to Buddhist true-self language and argue, “Even Buddhists search for an eternal self, so souls, past lives, and future lives must exist.” A word cautiously used as a method becomes evidence for an afterlife and eternal substance.
Whether the term is tathagatagarbha, Buddha-nature, true self, or protagonist, creating something new makes the public forget the original purpose and seek the name itself. Different ages produced different terms; we cannot simply declare them all identical. The more entities we define, the more the direct path is obstructed.
The negative statement non-self does not create a new substance
Non-self is a negative expression and therefore does not manufacture another entity. Such negative methods existed in Indian thought, and the Buddha also used them in teachings such as impermanence and non-self. By saying neither this nor that, they remove concepts already held.
Yet even negation can sound nihilistic if misused. Emptiness in the Prajnaparamita literature has sometimes been stretched into a single explanation that seems to deny life itself. This is why I have not led with heavily misunderstood terms such as emptiness or true self. When speaking publicly, we should avoid unnecessary opportunities for misinterpretation.
The route to the final condition matters more than naming it
At the end of Buddhist practice there may be a mental condition that has left every attachment. A speaker using true self and I may intend a similar destination. Our difference concerns the road. Which road is more direct, receives less misunderstanding, creates fewer errors when shared widely, and does not lose the core?
I considered that question for a month before uploading the channel’s first video. I did not want to explain all of Buddhism through one grand term. I wanted to communicate the Buddha’s words and essential direction in modern language without losing the core. That is more likely to help people unravel suffering, live happily, and progress toward Buddhahood.
By that standard, I do not tell people to search for a true self. It is a route with more misunderstanding than the direct way of impermanence and non-self, and it lies outside the method I choose to teach.
This article was edited by AI solely from the supplied video captions and description. No external sources were used.