On the Buddhist theory of the Amitabha Sutra and various laws and selflessness

What was denied by Shakyamuni was a fixed and substantial self, that is, he denied the existence of a self that is always constant, single, and the way one wishes, and I think he did not deny the momentary self moment by moment, that is, the self established as a causal union.

As you said, I wonder if it all comes down to “no substance.”

There is no substance, but that doesn't mean I don't exist here or now. But that self has no substance... Hmm, when I think about it, it seems like I'm entering a labyrinth.

Even if the self that “wow wow, so there is wow” is denied

“A father is not a child, and a child is not a father; furthermore, these two do not exist mutually, nor do they exist alone at the same time.” “Emptiness 70 Theory”
I wonder if it doesn't mean that the existence of me, which is hypothesized as a father referred to here, or me hypothesized as a child, is denied.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to explain clearly due to lack of study either.

Since it's a sutra from other denominations, I thought I wouldn't mention the Buddhist theory Amida Sutra, but I was a little interested and looked it up, “Huh?” That was the content, so I'll write it.
I have zero prior knowledge, so I read it while backing it up with the colloquial translation on the site below.
http://mjj.or.jp/amidakyou/amidakyou2

・In the sense of meaning, “Koretoshi Gagami” means “sheriffer. In my opinion, this statement is based on good reason.” So it should be one sentence.
“Saributsu, I say this because I saw this advantage (benefit of Nembutsu).”
In other words, “I” is a simple first-person subject, and it is a usage commonly used by Buddha.
Perhaps in the sutras at hand, “I see Koreyoshi.” It may be separated by, but sutras are often separated in a way that ignores context in order to adjust the style and rhythm. I don't seem to be explaining myself here in four-character compound words such as lawlessness.

・The same goes for “Nyoga-konsha” and “also known as Seunga.”
“Scherifer. Like I am now praising Amitabha for his incredible merits.”
“Scherifer. “Like We Are Today” praises the incredible merits of various Buddhas. His Buddhas etc. “Also known as Preaching Me” is an inconceivable merit. Just say it.”
We have to read it together until

I will quote from the reference site.
[O Saributsu, I now praise Amitabha's excellent work that cannot be measured...]
[O Sariputta, just as I praise the excellent function of the Buddhas whose thoughts cannot be measured, those Buddhas also praise the excellent function that my thoughts cannot be measured, and state the following.]

・ “Touchi ga” is the same, but the way sentences are cut is strange.
“Scherifer knows it. My Five Muddy World...” [Sariputta, I want you to know carefully. I am in this cloudy and dirty world...]
Or you should say “Sarifuta, I want you to know that I...” without separating them.
Probably in order to adjust the appearance with 4 characters 4 characters, “I am aware.” They're probably doing it. It's a common occurrence.

No matter how hard it is, it seems like it can't be helped.

Note, it's harder to think too much about various lawlessness if you read “it's not mine” rather than reading “there is no such thing as me.” As for the Buddha's point of contention, it's just a message saying, “There's nothing to be attached to anywhere in the world.”
Some people say, “Lawlessness is not appropriate. There are even people who say, “All laws are not ours right.”

Dagger Dex

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

As “everything is lucky and empty,” it can be said that the “I” of things and things that exist is “nothing” that does not exist at all, in other words, it is not “emptiness” or “absolute nothiness,” but “luck” (occurring in connection with others), and it can be said that it is something that exists for the time being.

Both “I” in “lawlessness” and “I” in the sutras are, in any case, a “sky” that is not established as an entity, as described above, but if it is a thing or thing that exists, it does not mean that there is nothing, and as Mr. Yoshitake Grammo also said, it can be said that they are established as “causal preunion,” that is, “luck” occurring due to various causes and conditions.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

Thanks to the fact that many people have translated from Sanskrit into Chinese, we can now easily touch the Chinese translation of Buddhist scriptures.
However, there are also cases where it cannot be accurately conveyed by translating.
They are afraid of that kind of thing, and they even do “phonetic writing,” where they don't dare to translate it and use guidebooks.

The character “I” appears quite frequently in sutras, but in fact, it is sometimes used for a different meaning.
There are many people who confuse even monks, so be careful.

It's obvious at a glance if you compare it to the original before translation, but for example, it often comes up,
“Joji ga Shinbun” is Evam Maya Srutam,
“Various Laws and No Law” is Sarva Dharma Anaatman
In the first place, they both use the character “I” as another word.

If you hear me, my self means “I am,” and my selfless self is “Atman.”
I think it's safe to read all of the things I see..., I'm now, I preach..., and I know... are all read as “I am.”
The meaning of the sentence is different from the lawless self.

Well, if I start talking about “Atman,” it seems like it will be a long time, so keep it simple.
The idea of reincarnation existed in India even before Buddhism. Well then, when thinking about what reincarnates when the body decays, what was assumed to be the “entity that reincarnates” is Atman.
However, due to the idea of good fortune, they denied “Atman who constantly lives and continues to be reincarnated.”
The idea is that various dharmas (laws) are not Atman.

From my reading, Atman's denial is not a denial that “there is no Atman.”
I've forgotten which sutras or treatises it was, but I feel like there was a part that denied the controversy itself, such as whether Atman exists or not.
It is not an assertion that “there is no such thing,” it is a stance that “it can't be helped even if you think about such a thing, and there is no way you can understand it.”
From that standpoint, I also feel that the “non-self” is more comfortable.

If you start talking a lot, you'll get caught up in the character limit, so please do your own research first.
On top of that, if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact us.