Buddha’s Hesitation

Regardless, whether it showed real historical facts or not, still a kind of life history of

Lord Buddha has been well established and well known. = So, everybody knows his young

name, Siddhartha Gautama and a story, after he got his enlightenment, he became Buddha.

—– But, how about a story, that after he found the truth and reached to his enlightenment,

yet he said to have hesitated whether should he tell what he found to the others or just

remain quiet and wait to see own Nirvana, because the truth what he found was

too difficult to make others to understand.

[]

But the supreme God of the Universe, Brahman was frightened of this, if

Lord Buddha keeps the secret of  Truth in him and takes it to his grave, the man kind will

loose only the chance to learn it to save whole man kind from their sufferings, for ever.  

(—– Don’t ask me how Brahman did become aware of this —– If Brahman had such

Super natural power to know everything happening in the world, why he didn’t teach

such wisdom to the man, instead to bother the idea of yet another mortals.)

—– Anyhow, Brahman said to have come and begged to

Lord Buddha to teach the truth. —– So, what was that very Truth ? ? ?

(which would save the man, though too difficult to be understood by the man.)

[]

Many hundreds years after

Lord Buddha’s death, the new trend of Mahayana Buddhism created thousands of

enlightened Buddha and Bodhisattva —- during 2000 years history, they must be hundreds

of the thousands altogether.   If there are such number of the enlightened Buddha and

Bodhisattva, among them, at least some of them must had a very bright brain and clearly

aware what made him to get enlightened —– So, has any of them ever elucidated what the

supreme truth was —– Yet still, there was NON at all.

Only something related to this was, that the Zen Masters found it was the Dog Shit.

[]

Mahayana Scriptures says, the supreme wisdom is

“Panya-Paramita” “Anutra Samyak-SamBodhi” —– So, What ?

= WAS this “Supreme wisdom”  the one which gave a headache to

Lord Buddha for how to explain and make others to understand ?    If so, did any

one of those mass-produced Buddha ever got eternal life thanks to this secret Truth ?

Or this wisdom ever made any country free from the war ?    Nothing !    

No such wisdom, called Panya-Paramita had substance.

(Don’t make an excuse, by yet another Heaven’s story such as “Maitreya will tell it in future” )

[]

Looking through all the teachings in the Buddhism, there is No super-natural mambo-jumbo.

= Everything is easily comprehendable to normal brain, if not some of them are a bit harsh

or not very easy to keep-up, still, it is hard to imagine if there was any

“Hard to comprehend enigmatic issue” was ever existed on top of those,

especially considering  that No abstracts or Metaphysical illusion was in the

Lord Buddha’s teachings —– BUT if it was the notion of Selflessness, it was not only against

the common belief then, but also it would be very tricky matter to explain therefore,  this

trickiness would best match the trouble as a possibility, in his starting point. 

Assuming, —– if it was not a kind of fancy idea with magical power,

but simply the notion of Selflessness.  

—– The idea of Selflessness would make a perfect answer to the problem which the people

had been facing then. = Their fear to be trapped in the endless cycle of death and rebirth.  

(= It was a belief of New religion in the Brahmanism then = Hinduism now.)  

Against this, the answer of  “There couldn’t be such rebirth, because there is

NO soul or the Self remain after the death, which

could reincarnate to the next life”  was a perfect explanation. ——– But the trouble to

Lord Buddha was,  as the Self isn’t existing, there couldn’t be its notion, nor the word “Self”

= He couldn’t explain the phenomenon of the Selflessness without using the word “Self”.

(If he use the word “Self”, in effect it was the recognition of the existence of the “Self”).

Even worse, the phenomenon of the Selflessness is, not only in the depth of

Subconsciousness, but such notion or the word Subconsciousness itself wasn’t existing then.

—– until he found the way “Just let the people DO the things where Selflessness naturally

occur, which makes them to learn it by themselves, without needs of verbal explanation”

= So, with this solution,

Lord Buddha started to teach.  =  (Therefore, this was the origin of all the Buddhist’s

tradition such as “Selflessness”   “Without thinking = Mushin”  

“Without Word = but Direct Transmission”   “Learn through the Practice”)

Lord Buddha didn’t need to have a push from Brahman to start his teachings in deed !

(Still, making-up of such fancy story highlights the fact, that the original teachings has

been completely mixed-up with Hinduism then.)

___/\___

[]

SELF again ? ! ! !

One of my friend who is a believer of the Brahmanism sent me a link to the site showing a (long )

conversation between a Guru and a follower.

—– www.krishnamurthys.com/profvk/advaitadialoguepage1.html

—————

Gosh !  Is it going on to 1008 lines ?

It’s a good sample of 3~4000 years argument.

My blog having strange conflict about this.  And 2000 years still no answer was found 😀

The argument is time-consuming and on the end no answer —– so,

Buddha cut off the time-waster “No such things like the Self ”

—–Though,  the obvious trouble is — I’m still here,  Who Am I ?

In my Blog,  I’m saying True Self is in our subconsciousness but it is not the self but the Dharma.

And the apparent self — Self-conscious is false or self-conceived illusion.

Still, leaving murkiness — When enlightened man sees the ” Dharma let this hand move” and created

something ( by himself ) — whose hands did the work.  Undeniably it was the same, very man —– though,

he was working in deep concentration (abandon himself  / he was not even aware his eyes were watching

his work )—–there was no Self,  as he was in Mushin, state of the Mind of No-mind ).

———- Your Brahmanism, your Guru is talking about abstract definition of the Self —– but

Buddha was talking about mental-state / neurophysiology.

Because, Life is not in your abstract imagination —– but you actually need to DO and LIVE.

And when you can achieve much better result  “ Do it in Mushin ”  why you need to have

conscious of  Self / notion of  Self.

When a Bank rend you a good money, you don’t need to think about the financial system behind the banking

operation —– you just invest the money into your business and work hard.

—– Buddhism is the pragmatic answer, the best answer applicable to the real life.

Not for a philosopher. Buddha didn’t need to save the Philosopher / Brahman.

He wanted to save the real people.

—

By the way, those conversation is the long tradition of which even Buddha did it with his disciples, and

the origin of the Rinzai-Zen though, as you too might have found, it’s hard to read 1008 lines without

fallen asleep  😀

That’s why I’m suggesting ” Cut a lemon—> and learn Mushin ” 😀

———- Convinced ?  😀

—–

There is a story of Buddha attending to a man wounded by an arrow.

His disciples were wondering from where the arrow could have been shot, the material it is made of, who

could have shot it etc etc,  while the man was dying !

Buddha said  ” Gentlemen !   STOP !!!   Attend to the man first, before he dies  !!!”

This is Buddha’s revolution with respect to Hindu philosophy  😀

—-

I’m well aware except few differences, there is little distance between Buddhism Dharma and

the Brahman / Atman. —– Yet its argument wouldn’t help much to the human life.

So, I would concentrate pragmatic implication ” Just Do It ”  😀

Because we can’t create our life just by imagining it.  We have to LIVE, while we LIVE.

___/\___

—-