How to teach No-Self and Void

No-self,  Mind of No-mind = Mushin,  Void etc etc —– in fact it’s all same state 

of the mind or brain though, a trouble is, it can not be explained —– because,

if it was explained, its action, and the words themselves destroy the notion of

No-self or Void and in effect, it is to prove that “You have your own Self”.    🙂

It is the same to a duty of silence, you can’t tell or declare that “I am in silence”

= if you tell that you are in a practice of silence = you fail the duty.

[]

In the Buddhist scripture it was “explained” in the relation to the 5 aggregates

= in fact the relation between the sense and the object =  “sensed” —–

such as a sense of vision and the object what you thought that you have seen,

and likewise sense of hearing etc etc = 5 senses and effectively all the existences.

===> Its core is,  you never be sure whether you actually seen it,  or what you

thought that you’ve seen, was true or not, that’s because the subject, you and the

object were existing in the relation to the others in moment to moment, hence

they couldn’t be defined as a reliable solid existence therefore nothing, include

yourself is real —– in another word, Void.    (It’s shame though,  to understand

what was written there doesn’t mean “able to get Selfless or see the Void” ! )

—– (The expression in a typical Mahayana scripture “Exists as Not-exists” was

an excuse of the autoer “I didn’t say neither exists or not exists” )   🙂

[]

Because of you, yourself is Void, you can’t explain it’s situation because the

situation in any moment is keep changing hence any static description could

be a false = in fact any such notion is nothing but a delusion.

So, this is the fundamental trouble to teach, let alone to explain the Selfless or Void.

Lord Buddha had this trouble too, of cause.   And his answer was “Not answer” —–

because, there is no problem to continue the life without having the SELF, far from

it, we were born and naturally living in Selfless, in other words, having and clinging 

to the Self, or believing that the world, or all the existences are really existing, is

nothing but the delusion.    So, what

Lord Buddha did was just show the practice he does in Selfless state (Mushin) = 

and he instructed to do the the same, exactly like him. = and everybody followed =

automatically following him exactly the same manner IS nothing but the practice 

of the Selflessness.    (Please read [Test of Selflessness])

[]

It is impossible to explain what the Selflessness or Void is, still in practice 

anything can be done in completely Selfless manner and it is in deed a

demonstration and the proof of the Void.

[]

And this was the reason why the scriptures are in haywire still the teachings of

Buddhism and it’s tradition has been maintained in the Zen practice.

—– if you can do the same, again and again without conceive a question, you are

in the Selfless state.    And you can extend this state to do any other work, even a

thinking process.   (It may sound funny as it is the same brain though, the thinking

part of the brain is not necessary involving the emotional region where the feeling

of Me = Self was created.  —– So, the mental practice of Detachment will work.)

___/\___

[]  

Buddha’s Silence

After I wrote [Moksa / Moksha] I had some talk with a man who is a staunching believer of

“to gain higher conscious to attain enlightenment, to escape from the cycle of re-birth”. 

—– naturally he didn’t like my view of that the current Buddhism is a mixed-up.

[]

While wondering  why the people couldn’t understand such obvious historical fact and rational

conclusion.   I try to see the Wiki kind in the net, to see what others are writing about what

Lord Buddha’s silence toward the question.   (I normally refer to the collection of Buddhism

scriptures in modern Japanese translation) — then I found those writers in Wiki kind, often use the

term “Samsara” etc. which is a Hindu term, and the use of the word such as [SELF] was rather in

casual way.   I realized, this must be yet another case of   “writer is not necessary understand

what the  [Selflessness]  in the original teachings”.

[]

Lord Buddha’s silence said to be occurred in two kind of questions.

One was about the world or space, whether it is infinite and eternal or not.

And the other was such as what would happen to the Spirit or the Self after the death.  

—– a funny connection to those questions, I remember an episode in the Agama Sutra, which I

wrote in a post [Three times Buddha] there could be a fixed attitude in

Lord Buddha’s responce.

After try to teach in tree different approaches, if they didn’t work, he just stop to talk.

[]

Lord Buddha’s teachings about the SELF was nothing like other Guru or Philosophers’, such as

theoretical argument of “if the self exists —- blah blah” “if not blah blah—” but

a definite phenomenon exists in our mind (brain) such as I wrote in a post

[ Selflessness demonstrated]. —– This is the very Selflessness what

Lord Buddha had based on in his teachings.   This was the reason why the another episode

[Test of Selflessness]  existed. — (Of cause, on the assumption, those episodes are true historical

event ) as I explained, this Selflessness (in fact virtually all of his teachings) was not a subject of

logical argument but just to be sublimated to the depth of unconsciousness and just to be.

Like “Honesty” it’s not a matter of understanding the meaning of  word.  Just Don’t lie.

The only rule was Just do it, Just be it.   No question.  No thinking.

= If the one was really in Selfless state, no question of such as “After death” could arise.

( Being oneself without having even a conscious to be oneself,  no separate objective view toward

the self, let alone to the future after the death. —– no such mind could exists)

Honest man never think, nor need to think about the eyes of other people.

—– therefore, when he was asked the very question, he must be very

annoyed, hence ignored it and kept silence.

Even a conscious of self  is not in the living body, how it could remain after the death.

(Self is a product of intentional thinking = delusion.  Hence, when the producer dies, its product too) 

And as all the existences are inter-dependent and keep changing, how could we know

how far it extend and what happenes next moment = as nothing would last for ever.

(—- Don’t you remember what I’ve taught ?    Don’t ask obvious question again ! )

Lord Buddha didn’t even explain why he smiled, nor he would why he didn’t answer.

___/\___

[]

(The trouble of those Wiki authors are, that they are thinking the SELF is yet another

existence.  But, in the original Buddhism teachings, the matter was its NON existence.

= talk about what not there is pointless. —– in fact, it indicates, that they are not

Buddhism scholar but probably Hindu writer who is familiar with the idea of “Atoman”

Lord Buddha’s  Selflessness is the VOID of it, unlike an idea of Box contains “Kind Mind”

or “Self-Sacrificing Mind”  “Supreme Holy Mind” etc. —— but  Box itself is NOT there. ) 

[]