Yoshizen's Blog

Simple Fact = the Truth

It is a simple fact, in our daily life, unless we intentionally think “I am”, we are living without a conscious of self. —– Do you walk while thinking “I am walking” ? Or, are you reading this script here while aware of “My eyes are following this, letter by letter and my brain is taking and understanding its meanings in” —– I don’t think so. You are just walking without knowing who is walking or who makes you to walk. So does, you have been reading this without knowing who IS reading. In deed, You or Your-SELF haven’t been existing as a conscious. That’s because such as SELF is nothing other than a product of the thinking, in other words, it was an intentionally created imaginal figure which is to assert or to demonstrate the ownership of “this person”. In fact it IS a part of one’s desire, Ego and the Greed. So that, such as the SELF, let alone Perpetual self could not exists as a reality. It’s mean, such as a reincarnation could never possible to occur simply because the subject, the SELF, whom to be reincarnated is not existing. How could it be ?

It IS so simple as a straight fact yet still because of it, it is very difficult to explain why. Quite a lot of Buddhists tried to explain though all of them only made a simple truth more complicated. Because of the authoritative attitude of those monks, who want to make their word looks great, they made up unnecessarily heavy theory such as Void or so on. The truth to be with Dharma is not necessarily heavy matter such as even a seed of dandelion can fly away.

Lord Buddha’s teachings were not complicated or theoretical, in order to any followers can grasp the truth by themselves. (not by understanding the complicated words or teachings but through their own observation on the practice = not believe the words but get it by yourself) —– Such as the earliest teachings of 4 noble truth, they were not a kind of complicated deep theory but the clear fact or simple human reality. That’s reality IS the very truth. Like we are here IS the Dharma.

So, when Lord Buddha pointed out the Point, it went straight into the mind of the followers almost like a lightening, the followers could get the truth at once. ( it made a legend and the tradition of the instant enlightenment.)

So, even now those monks still keep talking complicated words and the fantasy of heavens. —– can’t those people open their eyes to see such simple reality and the truth ?



What Buddha taught ?

When we try to find what was the original teachings of

Lord Buddha  among the millions line of scripture, we have

to pay the most heavy attention to the personality of

Lord Buddha as an individual human being in his totality, while

chiselling out all the mixed-ups and the glorifying decorations.

(If the scripture had Hindu name, it is not Buddhism, or the 

story has supernatural magnificence it was just a fantasy.)

—– there could be a gradual change of his view and the opinion

still, there couldn’t be an utter contradiction from the same person.

Since he got his Enlightenment (with his own understanding of the

world) after he seceded from ascetic monks/Guru’s group (with a

disappointment and a lost hope to find a viable answer from them

and such ascetic approach) therefore his idea couldn’t be anything

like a transcendental oracle like fanatic words  (so-called

mumbo-jumbo) but  frank and down to the earth straight idea.


Typically like Four Noble Truth, those very brunt and blatant words

were the words of cool realist.

If the person was a kind of salesman, he would have chosen much

sweeter words and even a misleading bait in it (such as a promise

of Heaven). But

Lord Buddha was not a spin-doctor but rather like a rational scientist,

he talked the facts and phenomena, not his speculation or fantasy —

its mean his teachings were not an idealistic Dogma but the wisdoms

based on the facts and the scientific observations.

= in this approach, he found the mechanism of Karma and able to see

the effect of the time in moment to moment flaw.    So that, to find 

the NO Perpetual Soul (Anatman) was a straight conclusion.

(That’s why in his Sangha, there was no Cast = curse from the past)

Those observations and the understandings needs no special filter to 

see = they are the common facts, and from those observations anybody

who acquired the right eyes can see and find the truth behind 

( 8 right ways meant this) and see the Enlightenment.   That was why,

Lord Buddha gave the last instruction on his death bed

“Don’t believe what was said but see/learn it yourself” = this word

clearly indicates that the teachings were not a Dogma to memorise

but the Direct Transmission =

wisdom which could be learned from the observation of Facts.


And Lord Buddha’s observation went into deep inside of the

human psych = subconsciousness too.

He realised that we are able to see and know the subject

without us thinking it.  (So-called intuition) 

And he thought this is the Manifestation of the Dharma in us.

(We can walk without thinking how to walk — so,

WHO made us to walk ? = It must be the Dharma !

But being in our subconscious, even we know it’s there though

we can not see = It is there and/but It is not there.  (There must

be a big debate about “Self / Soul, the subject / who is thinking, =

the person who is thinking IS WHOM ?       Though, as

Lord Buddha took the stance that there is no Self / Atman = talking

this subject IS effectively a recognition of the existence of the Self =

So, how it was debated was very interesting but we may not know.

—– still from the Scripture we can see the description “Giving

without aware of giving IS the true giving” = we can guess what

was taught there then.  And from here, (if Self exists or not) the

debate extended —> Does Dharma exists or itself is Void ? ? ?

And in this context, an episode in the Agama sutra was the

story which gave us the most crucial insight.

= That was the true record of

Lord Buddha’s teachings.



Hoben (方便) / Upaya — (2)

Most of the books I refer to, are I brought from Japan and unless I need to find

the English word, I do not look into Wiki kind. —– So, I tell you the truth,

until few days ago, I didn’t know that there a Sanskrit word for Hoben (方便), Upaya

existed.   In Japan Hoben is a widely used word spread out of the Buddhism,

which has an extended meaning of “convenient mean” or “easy alternative” kind,

and the original Buddhist context was masked by those common usage.

Lord Buddha’s witty teachings, which was timely and suit to the occasion, or to

the person speaking to, is a well known stories, hence those witty talk style has

been adapted by the Zen talk, or even by the children’s comic book “Ikkyu-san”.

As its casual use became so common, we almost forgotten it had a Buddhism origin.

—– So that, to find this word, “Upaya” really surprised me, not because of its

meaning but the attitude, the ancient monk did created a dedicated nickname for 

Lord Buddha’s talking style, yet still, they couldn’t find the meaning of

Lord Buddha’s silence.


Do you talk about the prostitute or prostitution in public ? I don’t think you do.

It’s a dirty talk and officially, it’s not exist in your life.  And if it’s not in the society,

neither a word prostitution exists.   It’s mean, even if anybody asked about it, you

can not understand what it mean nor able to answer.

To Lord Buddha, talking about Atman or Self never happened, because no such things

of the Self exists and to talk about a thing which is not exists was nothing but a 

delusion and it is a dirty talk.   Because of it is not exists and as he doesn’t have, it was 

no use to make a question about the Self or its reincarnation to him, because 

he wouldn’t answer anyway, since even no word, no notion was there.

= This was the reason why, to those questions, there was no answer from

Lord Buddha at all.


And when the teaching was related to the Self, there was no explanatory words

but to show the practice which would lead to the “Selfless State of the mind” —–

or just to give a smile, otherwise (if you can’t get it), the excommunication.

(This was the reason why no explanation of “No Self” was in the scripture.

—– either it was omitted because of the conflict with the Hinduism or it couldn’t

be written down because, no such things like a Self exists.)

(In Buddhism, especially in Zen, there is nothing between Yes and No.

Yes mean 200% commitment but if it was No, even a word No itself is no longer exist.

= it is not a denial or even an argument but a total erasure = the subject, the matter

is completely disappeared. = hence no psychological conflict.

When no-self, there is even no subject, who is thinking the matter.)



%d bloggers like this: