Yoshizen's Blog

Self again

To a Buddhist, self is the most problematic subject for ever.  Though, surprisingly very little was   written in the scripture.  Do you know why ?   Because, it was the first problem of all.   As you might know, that, in the Buddhism, there is no self. (How to write about which is not exist)

Yes — NO-SELF but in here there are already two problem was loaded.   When we say “Self” there are two meanings or the Aspects of it.   One of them is a part of our mind, somewhat related to the Ego.   And the other is the notion created by its observation.

= If you ARE true ( = Rationally coherent) Zen Buddhist, you can not say No-self. —– ?   Why ?    If there is really no Self, even a word “Self” can not exist.  (If you say “No-Self” there is one more self in your mind who is observing your mind = you are not yet in a state of Ichi-jo = oneness)

If there is a land where no crime neither criminal act exists, there couldn’t be a word / notion of crime there.   Exactly same to this, when there is no self, the word “Self” is not exists. (Unless it was a fraud)  On the time of

Lord Buddha, the followers could receive his teachings in an up to the occasion metaphor or so-called upaya often using the action, there was not much difficulty to understand it.    With, the notion of No-Self, therefore No Perpetual Soul, therefore No Reincarnation, therefore No cast was demonstrated in the Sanggha as a deed (not the verbal explanation) = Everybody was accepted and treated as an equal followers.

Though, hundreds of years later, on the time of Mahayana, the scripture writer had to invent a kind of printable expression to explain the “Selflessness” to the mass without using the word SELF, such as in the Vimalakirti sutra “To give without having the mind of giving is The true giving” or otherwise “See as not to see”, “Do while not to do” kind —– they are trying to express the act without having the conscious of action (not such as a gray zone between two.) —– yet now, quite a lot of people still thinking that to sacrifice own self is the selflessness. (it’s just a devotion —– while riding a bicycle, your body moves without your self-conscious, so, you don’t need a devotion for bicycle = just ride) = It’s the same, Buddhists doesn’t need to be a vegetarian.

___/\___

.

Mindfulness yet again ? ? ?

Many years, I’ve been having incongruity toward the use of the word, so-called Mindfulness. — With a kind of hunch (There seems to be a big mistake ! ), I refer back to the Agama scripture how they wrote about the definition of Selfless. —– It seems there is no direct description of No-self in the Agama, but only the indirect explanation, which was as an answer to a question “Is there permanent Self (Atoman) exists ?”   It was only in a metaphor of the impermanence of a soil (or cow dung). (= Even such simple existence of soil couldn’t be permanent, how the mind or Self could exists permanent.)

Of course the No-self was not the primary phenomenon but only a consequence of No-permanence, and No-permanence was because of the constant activity of the Karma. Understanding of the Karma was Lord Buddha’s most fundamental philosophy, and from here, such as Four Noble Truth were deduced.   Therefore, it may not too strange to have less significance of the No-self in the Agama scripture.   Or, it could be the deliberately placed emphasis to negate the Self.  Since you can’t talk about a thing which is not exists. Why Self is not exists, because it was a deluded product of the mind.  And the mind is only a momentary reflection of the Karma.  So that, to put emphasis on the mind (of awareness / memory) in the Mindfulness practice IS not Buddhism.  In deed, the Theravada sect who promoted the idea of Mindfulness was based on the idea of Sathi, which was the idea in the Vedic meditation.   Of course Vedic stands on the idea of Atoman = Perpetual mind / Self = so that, become aware of the mind = mindfulness IS their practice.   It is not a Buddhism but nothing but a Hindu practice.  This IS a typical mix-up or a misunderstanding of the Buddhism by the Theravada sect.

Whether clinging the mind could bring any good to the mental health of the person, in comparison to the empty-minded Buddhists.  It was too apparent in the social phenomena in a Hindu country, in contrast to a country where people even don’t remember that they were the Buddhist = Japan.   A country where the notorious brutal gang rape cases were kept happening, or the country where the safest place to travel.       The question IS where their Ethos and the Morality came from.

It was the observation made by Lord Buddha 2500 years ago.   Clinging the idea and such mind is nothing but a delusion since the idea of “such mind could exists” itself IS the delusion.   And let all the five senses free = not to stick to any perception will make us to emancipate any notion or image, hence able to see the Dharma. (All those notion, images which were the products of thinking, has been masking the Dharma.)

It IS the biggest irony, as long as you are thinking or seeing something, you can not see the truth. When you abandon to see, you start to see the Dharma. — The most funny irony IS, to abandon to see, stop thinking to see IS exact opposite of the so-called mindfulness practice. So, those so-called mindfulness practice is creating yet another delusion and the obsession.

___/\___

.

%d bloggers like this: