Self again (2) — Buddha’s hesitation

In the Lord Buddha’s story, it was said that the after reached his enlightenment he was very reluctant to tell others what he found, since

Lord Buddha was very much aware that what he found was too difficult to make others to understand.     It seems, the earliest teachings started with the teachings of the Four Noble Truth and other stories showed that the idea of the Karma, Cause and the Effect has followed it. —– though, behind those story, there seemed to be a many misunderstandings or a twisted truth.

Give a thought or two, is the teachings of the Four Noble Truth or teachings of the Cause and Effect contain any difficult logic or the theory which gave a headache to comprehend.

Considering the situation, that the time when the oral tradition of the teachings were written down by the Vedic Brahman ( = only the people who could read and write then, even if he was converted to the Buddhism, like Shari Putra.), the teachings of the No-self may not to be written down faithfully.  Because to the Vedic Brahman who has been taught to believe that the existence of the Atoman (perpetual soul) it was too irrational to write down the teachings of Anatoman (= No-self).    And as I wrote it in the previous post, it is almost impossible to explain it without using the notion and the word of “self”. = (If you use the word Self, it is effectively recognised the existence of the Self.)

So that, it is much more natural to believe that what Lord Buddha found in his enlightenment was the idea of the No-Self (which was the rational answer from our existence as a cause) = Anatoman.   Yet this was really a problematic, revolutionary idea then.  = naturally very difficult to teach against the others popular belief.  Therefore, it naturally made him to become very reluctant to talk about —– until, he found the way to teach it without the words = in action (and the Upaya.)

(Without having this under line  tradition — (or the hidden fact) behind, it is hard to explain how and why the idea of No-Self or Void came up and became very popular in the time of Mahayana.)  

.

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.

___/\___

.