About the color is the sky the sky is the color “sky”

I read it.

I think it can also be said that way. However, when it comes to not having free will... I think that is also different.

I think the importance of “the sky is the color” is still there. It means you can't end up with “color is empty.”

You can also not respond to stimuli, right? I'm not resisting, and I'm not obsessed...
However, that is unnatural for humans, so there is a need to respond to stimuli.

I think it's important to know both of them, not to deny either, and to be able to realize the necessity of the two jobs. There is uncertainty between the two.

... It may not have answered your question, but I'm also very interested. I'm also very interested in the opinions of other temples. I'll study for you. ... It's hard to organize well in words, I'm lacking in ability... Gassho

☆ Hossy ☆

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

Humble Essay “On the Sky” in the Heart Sutra
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/hidetoshi-k/e/93cd51b49c2264eb00fcc00a904a3392

Among them, with regard to “color is the sky the sky is the color”...

Speaking of the “Heart Sutra,” the most famous phrase is “color is the sky is the color, the sky is the color,” and “color” in this case is “a material phenomenon,” and “the essence of a material phenomenon is empty, and since it is an empty essence, material phenomena appear as something auspicious,” in other words, “material phenomena are not formed as entities, independent existence, but they are formed by emptying luck.” Furthermore, it continues to be such an effect of “acceptance, thought, action, and consciousness” other than our color (substance), as “something that can be said to be an empty essence because it is an auspicious thing.”
In any case, everything in this world is always made up of being dependent on others, and there is no such thing as being made up without being dependent on others, and therefore, all things and things that can be “lucky” have no substance and can be said to be “empty.” ・・

Even if it is “sky,” it does not mean that there is nothing “emptiness,” and there certainly exists something described as “sky.” It exists, but it means that it has only been established as “good luck.”

Also, it is possible that each of us can make choices depending on the effects and functions of each of the five elements (color, reception, thought, action, consciousness), etc., and the causal relationships (causes and conditions) of various things and things. However, although there are possible effects and functions of selection, it means that even if you are asked who selected it, of course, you will not be able to find that entity.

There is no substance to intention, but I hope you can think that it is different from fatalism and determinism, assuming that it is possible that choices can be made depending on the cause and effect of luck.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

“Consciousness” also has no “individuality,” and “it seems like they are making their own choices,
Does that mean “I didn't actually choose”?

I don't think “consciousness” has “identity.”
Self-identity, center, subject even if there is no such thing
I think life is working admirably and perfectly.
Rather, it is better not to acknowledge one's own personality or subject,
I think it would work great.
Great, perfect work and wisdom before “I”
I'm working.
I'm just explaining it by adding “me.”

I think self actually has two meanings.
One is my original, true self.
The other is “me” and “myself,” which I usually think of as myself
What is called, this is an idea. It created a cognitive effect.
It's the self watching something, the self from birth until death...

What dares to say selflessness and emptiness is
Our self as an idea is our real self with substance
That's because I'm assuming it.
What is the self of “it seems like I'm making my own choice, but it's actually a choice...”
If it's your conceptual self, that's the case. It can also be said that I haven't made a choice.
The original self, which created the conceptual self, is the work itself
So it can also be said that they are choosing.

It “acts” only as a “response” to a “stimulus,”
It means that there is no such thing as “self-selection”
Maybe it is?

Do you call Omoto's own function a “reaction” or “self-choice”
I think calling them is the same thing due to differences in expression.
What is Omoto's own reaction
So much so that that person creates all of that person's world
It's a big job.

If you discern your conceptual self as an idea and drop it,
One world called self and others, wholeness appears
In other words, that wholeness is my original self.

I think like this.

I think that's true.
Since the sky is the reason for causal relationships with the Three Treasure Seal (impermanent acts, no laws, nirvana silence), everything is empty. And vice versa.
Consciousness is the same.
When you think about something, you think so due to various senses, knowledge, experiences, ideas, and other causes.
It seems like they chose it of their own will, and it can also be said that they didn't.
There is probably some reason why you became interested in Buddhism.
And your knowledge of Buddhism is probably leading your intentions in a better direction.
And I think that will lead your actions, and even your life, to a better direction for your family.
When I feel this strange relationship, I want to put my hands together. Thank you, thank you.
I hope that you will continue to learn Buddhism and that it will be a good cause for your decisions.
Gassho

Hmmm... it's a bit confusing, isn't it? Even if I had to say heart in a nutshell, “Ah, it's a woman!” A sensorial mind that quickly senses it, and there it says, “I like it. It is subdivided into various minds, such as a mind that evaluates “but I'm a little concerned about the characteristics of that area,” and has likes and dislikes, short-term memory, long-term memory, and even a deep psychological mind that no one really understands.

Among them, the primary mind that is quickly perceived is probably close to the reaction. However, the secondary mind of evaluating and liking and disliking is close to action. However, that doesn't mean it's 100% divisible.

But that's not what matters.
The slight complexity of the sky is a place where the color is “sky” and “sky” is an even larger “sky” that incorporates color. In the words of Zen, “think (shiryo) about the mysterious bottom of (this)). I don't know how much I can't think about it. Insanity (heishiryo.” That's it.
The fact that each is different (individual/thought/color) and the fact that they are one (whole/unknown/“ sky”) are blended together to be “empty,” and it is unthinkable. I now wonder if the Heart Sutra refers to it by “Sora” and Hannya Haramita (“Sora”).

It's an analogy. A mother is raising her baby. The baby became constipated. It is often called physiological constipation in newborns. Sometimes it lasts 10 days or more. “Even though it's so small, it's stored in my stomach, and how cute it looks... if it's something that can be replaced, I want to replace it...” it's finally very bright! yuck ah ah! Mom is overjoyed as if it were her own.

At times like this, the mother's heart is filled with the baby, and the mother's “I am me” calms down. This is color, that is, the sky, and it leaves oneself and passes through to others.
But no matter how much I calm myself down, parents are parents and children are children. It is contrary to natural law for children to take their boobs out and let their parents drink them. A parent satisfies the parent, the child satisfies the child... complying with the differences of each goes directly through the whole. This is the color of the sky.
It is an enlightenment after blending both the vector that takes all of this individual and the vector that is also all individual without contradiction.

If you stick to differences, it's an obsession with yourself. But the whole thing alone is an obsession with enlightenment. It's just a personal opinion, but treating only wholeness as sacred tends to be metaphysical, and I feel the colors of Hinduism or Jainism or something in that direction.

It's good to know that the pure act of natural futility itself has no crime, blame, good, or evil. We'll give a reason later. Even if it seems like they are acting on their own, it is “just that” because they are acting unconsciously at the beginning of the act.
The essence of any choice is being made without human opinion entering it. Since the act itself is separate from human sense and opinion, it is being acted as Buddhism (= human opinion, being able to separate “me”).
Even though it itself is itself (even an act), the fact that human coloring exists without any human coloring being done is called Buddhism or the Buddha's phase.
In other words, the lack of individuality can be said to be “nature itself.”
It's not that there aren't any. It fulfills its “natural nature.” It seems that there are no good or bad names that humans can criticize.
Therefore, our consciousness is a “natural nature” called consciousness.
Since there is only a function of consciousness, it is a natural function of nature, and there is no “nature” there.
Of course, acting with plenty of one's own ego or desire is something else.
“I'm Nakisama” and “Sama Who Can Be Picked Up by Me” = Sky
Even the thoughts that occur within us don't have a label called “my own” when they occur.
I think it's easier to understand if you paraphrase selflessness = “selfless work.”
Selflessness = I work without sex, natural function
Self-nature = selfishness
If you take a close look at your own activities, pompoms should come out fully automatically, as if the thoughts that come out, the sounds you can hear, the scenery you see, and your breathing don't have any “feelings.”
Therefore, acts performed without “botherhood” are a great comfort.
Since human thoughts and pure words and actions are left as if they were not originally self-nature or selfishness from the beginning, it is a safe and comfortable act no matter what you do.
If you leave that and treat it through a human point of view (in my own way), it's something that shows off my sexuality and even becomes ego ego.
☝ For example, let's say you casually sit in an empty seat.
There's no reason for that.
I just sat down on the chair.
Later, “Why did you choose this chair even though there are so many others?” There isn't even a reason why they are connected to such a logic. They must always act like that (in the spirit of Buddhism).