Yoshizen's Blog

Core of the Buddhism

Did Buddhism asked the followers to remember any special notion,

something like a rule of the “Preservation of Energy” in physics or

a special formula, or to do very peculiar practice ?   (Don’t mix-up

with a funny ritualistic practice of Tantra sect.

Or their magic Mantra (Dharani) which was claimed to have a

supernatural power. — They are noting to do with the teachings of

Lord Buddha.)


—– Such as Four Noble Truth = they are only a bit deeper

understanding of the phenomena in our life general.

= After all, what the Buddhism telling us were the Awareness

toward our own existence.    Which is not far from our

common sense = Because all of us ARE existing more or less on

the same bases = Nobody was born to live for ever, nor born

with the wings to fly etc etc = nobody is superman, or

divine figure in flesh —– as no supernatural facts exists (other

than silly delusion or rumour) there couldn’t be any possibility

of the fantastic fabrication mixed into the Buddhism teachings.

(In deed, there are mountain of fancy stories = but they ARE

the fancy stories = nothing to do with the teachings.

— It’s a fun to see a fancy imagination of the people.)    😀


Lord Buddha denied any idealistic notions as they are only

the delusions.  (Therefore he completely ignored to answer

(completely stop to talk the person is the same to kill him)

the questions about “after the life” or about the “universe”

which is neither exists nor possible to know.

—– Considering the both subjects are the easiest topics to tell a

fabrication or a fancy story (because, to counter prove its fancy

story is even harder — Try to prove there are Heaven and Hell.

Then try disprove them.   You will see it’s a waste of time = so that,

Lord Buddha completely ignored it. )

Probably the most important key to decipher Buddhism teachings

are in the story of Kisa Gotami (Running around the village) =

as a typical Upaya teaching, there was no verbal teaching but the

learning by the practice = Direct transmission to the subconscious.

= No lexical Notion/Idea or Thinking process.

And this phenomenon was also significant in this story.

—– Why it’s significant = because its phenomenon of

“Exists but Exists Not” character of the Subconsciousness

and this phenomenon is the core of the Voidness.

Dharma IS here or HERE all together IS the Dharma though,

since its detail is constantly changing moment to moment because

the Karma is active, it couldn’t be defined in one shape, still it IS

the Dharma.  = This “Exists yet Exists not” character is parallel to

our subconsciousness.  = And this IS what we ARE = and to

become aware this fact IS the Enlightenment.

(So, effectively it IS no difference to know who I AM = just

I am as I am. = That’s why, it is a Dog shit.)   😀



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.


%d bloggers like this: