Isn't trying to attain enlightenment itself an affliction?

It's an exaggeration to say “seeking enlightenment,” but I think the point is just “I want to be happy,” but that is based on the perception that the present is unhappy. The point of this misfortune is that things don't turn out the way you want them to.

At first, the Buddha also thought that if you cut off the worries that arise from your five senses, you would be happy, and for 6 years, you did not drink or eat, and penance without sleep, but in the end, you realized that you would not be happy even if you cut off your worries.
Therefore, they were moderately nourished, and instead of hurting the body, they obtained happiness through meditation where they objectively looked at themselves.
Therefore, in Buddhism, I think the purpose is not to abandon worries and desires, but to control worries and desires.
Everyone is worried about their appetite and desire to sleep, and they also have various desires, but if they are gone, life cannot be maintained, and above all else, it is impossible to be happy.

Worry is a function in the heart that causes worry and suffering.
The goal of enlightenment in Buddhism is the elimination of worries.
Trying to get rid of worry is trying to get rid of worry and suffering, so if that method is correct, it cannot be said that it is something that increases worry and suffering (worry) on the contrary.
For example, trying to clean is not normal for getting dirty.
Unless it's a very wrong way to clean.
Now, when the affliction disappears, the worries and suffering corresponding to that affliction disappear.
For example, the worry of interviewing the abstinence is the worry of being obsessed with wrong practices or meaningless superstitions.
Somehow you can imagine that sticking to superstitions causes unnecessary trouble and suffering.
So, when the obsession with superstition disappears, one worry and suffering disappears.
Once you realize that something you thought was important until now isn't a big deal, you'll never get attached to it again. It probably means that once the worries are gone, they won't be revived.
If someone who misunderstood the shade of the tree reflected in the window as a ghost realizes that it is not a ghost, but a tree shade, they will never look like a ghost again.
We living creatures have innate “misunderstandings.” This is called worry.
It can also be said that understanding comes from breaking away from misunderstandings and becoming aware of the truth.

Don't you think that all the thoughts that come up first are worries?
Thoughts that come out naturally themselves aren't bothersome or anything.
It's just popping up.
If you look closely at your own thoughts through zazen and meditation, thoughts are fully automatic, automatic, and official; they only occur naturally when you first touch an edge.
By seizing it, “catching, picking up, and grasping” the thought that came up with one's own values, and then handling it privately, inconvenience occurs with respect to that thought.
For example, bad feelings come up and blame yourself, saying, “Oh, you can't think about this.”
As a result, trouble occurs in the heart. This is called worry, and true Buddhism is not a ❝ tip ❞ teaching, as is said in secular Buddhism, that greed is not good. If greed is a squid, do you say it's a squid if you're alive, you can't die, and even if you want to take a breath, it's a squid?
Next, let's talk about seeking enlightenment.
As mentioned above, seeking is energy and power, not worry or anything.
Depending on how you use fire, it can be bad or good.
Other than the five desires, I want to be free, I want to be happy, I want to seek the truth, and I want to be a good person; if this is a bad thing, that's probably not the case.
If it is sometimes said in Zen that one should seek enlightenment, it is time for zazen.
In order for the heart of seeking to become a state of enlightenment, sitting = zen where the mind is not disturbed by external things = zazen where the mind is not affected by inner thoughts, it is simply that the energy of wanting to be enlightened and the desire to be enlightened gets in the way. If you keep saying that you want to be quiet, that you want to be quiet, your mind won't be quiet no matter how long it's been. (^<^)
Buddhism requires proper learning of Buddhism.
◆ If you keep taking that expensive drug (tell me) and it doesn't work, you should have doubts that the medicine ❶ may not have an effect ❷ the way you perceive it is different. That's where the severity of Zen lies.
“This is fine, this is fine”
Even if you kill people, it's no good to say “this is fine”, right? (lol)
There is a difference between secular Buddhism and true Buddhism. Try asking for more.

Seiya-sama

This is Kawaguchi Hidetoshi. This is a humble answer to the question.

When it comes to expressions relating to the supreme truth of Buddhism, such as enlightenment, nirvana, and Shinnyo, there are sometimes difficult expressions that are difficult to understand, expressions that surprise, and expressions that may cause misunderstandings.

In order to avoid misunderstandings, I think it is important to make adjustments so that there are no mistakes in understanding as you learn and practice Buddhism from scratch.

As already mentioned by Kakumoto Tange, there are two truths that Buddhism preaches: “secular mantra” and “Katsuyoshi.”

Therefore, I think that one reference would be to carefully examine and understand which of the expressions we are trying to show.

For the time being, “secular” is a truth that is recognized as secular and generally correct in places where it is not examined deeply from a Buddhist philosophical point of view. Simply put, it's like it's written in a school textbook.

On the other hand, “Katsu Yoshitaka” is simply the ultimate truth that aims at “sky” (meaning that all things and things do not establish themselves as an entity on the side of themselves), which is a philosophical view of Buddhism.

Also, “Katsu Yoshitaka” is originally a linguistic expression, a language path that goes beyond fiction, and the truth about the annihilation of sarcasm, so if you try to express it, it is absolutely impossible, and at a stage where the basics of Buddhism are not understood to some extent, it is easy to cause misunderstandings, so I think it is really necessary to be careful.

As a typical example, in the Heart Sutra, even the Four Noble Noble Truths, which are the fundamental teachings of Shakyamuni, are denied as nothing, and the wisdom to be gained, in other words, enlightenment can be obtained is denied as nothing. However, if you honestly understand it as it is, you will still fall into the wrong opinion. (What has been denied is just the way it is as an entity.)

Also, regarding “obsession” with regard to enlightenment, please refer to the humble answer below.

Question “On the interpretation of 'obsession'”
http://blog.livedoor.jp/hasunoha_kawaguchi/archives/1010494816.html

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho