Do the Buddha's teachings apply to individuals?

If you can make delicious food yourself, you'll probably be able to make that recipe.
Even if you become selfless and your sense of self is destroyed, it just means that ❝ an enlightened person ❞ = loss of self, and that doesn't mean you're just like Carappo. Then Shaka's enlightenment won't help either. It's just a moment to look back and say, oh, whether that was enlightenment or the moment my sense of self was destroyed, ❝ reflection ❞ arises for a moment, and after that, I'm in a state of nirvana. Sense of discernment can also be used freely. Please keep an eye on that.
There are many discussions in the world that “enlightenment is not like this,” but most of them are just arguments.
Unfortunately, a brain in a state of speculation, theory, and analysis is not in a state of understanding no matter how far it goes, it is ❝ reason ❞.
No matter what honorary professors at any great Buddhist university write the theory of enlightenment, if the person in question is not enlightenment, it is just a “guess of enlightenment.” because they haven't realized it.
There are things that make me feel enlightened. Please be careful.
A long time ago, I also worked hard to write down φ(..) memos under a master who had enlightened Zen.
However, the essence of what I was doing was nothing but ❝ analysis/interpretation/translation ❞ of enlightenment.
I think enlightenment could not be more clearly expressed. However, no matter how much you explain it to others, if you don't feel at ease in your own mind, I have to say that the way to ask for it is wrong. A lot of people fall into it. Let's face it.
By abandoning ❝ fictional arguments ❞, you can properly live ❝ in your brain with enlightenment ❞.
Whether or not you are saved from life, old age, illness, death, and various hardships is better than whether or not you have enlightenment.
This is because it is not an enlightenment theory; if you seriously ask only whether you have become clear and are truly free from all thoughts, it will become clear whether your current enlightenment is real, and whether there is still room to seek. (^. ^)
It's like the difference between a critic and an artist.
Critics are not creators.
Something like the difference between an economist (theory) and a high-paying taxpayer (actual).
The difference between a food critic who can't cook food (just eats) and a top chef (who can cook).
No matter how much you talk about cooking and make a recipe book, “Eh, can't you make it?” OK, art cake. My stomach doesn't swell. It doesn't make me feel at ease.
“Am I really at ease? Are you sure you're okay?” Seriously ask yourself this question.

Arimi-sama

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

A humble summary of “enlightenment” so far...

1. Enlightenment is self-proof (something proven within oneself), and it is impossible to convey it to others. However, if they are people who have realized each other, I think there are things they can understand.

1. The content of enlightenment is a state of desolation and outrage, and originally, language expression (fixation, obsession) is unforgivable.

1. Enlightenment is also “empty,” and it is like an illusion that is not formed as an entity, selfishness, or self-phase, and an illusory person is trying to capture “enlightenment,” which is like an illusion, in terms of our self, mind, and cognitive effects, which are originally illusory.

1. Of course, even if “enlightenment” is “empty,” it does not mean that there is “no” enlightenment, and depending on the cause and effect for enlightenment, “enlightenment” is possible as luck.

But first,

“The interpretation is that there is no “enlightened person”...

I know that “people” and “individuals” with attributes such as “a state of enlightenment” or “the work of enlightenment” are possible as responses or transformations to save sentient beings in the three bodies (dharma, revenge, and response) representing the state of the Buddha. Of course, it may depend on the conceptual interpretation of “person” and “individual,” but...

“Why is there such a thing as Buddhist teachings?” ・・

I have interpreted it as existing as a teaching taught by Buddha and Nyorai.

“There is no individual who hasn't been saved in the first place”...

I know that every sentient being, including individuals who are struggling with reincarnation due to ignorance, distress, and misdeeds, has not yet been saved.

“I don't think people who need salvation can be seen from the Buddha's point of view”...

I know that the will of great mercy, the power of great wisdom, and the power of the great gods have been shown.

“It is only in illusions that there is personal free will and choice”...

Of course, I know that personal free will and choices can also be “lucky” for each individual. However, I believe that state of affairs is not an illusion; it is just an “illusory” way of being.

That's all due to the number of characters. Please forgive me for not being able to fully capture the true meaning of the question because I am an immature person.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

Buddhism is the teaching of becoming a Buddha (attaining enlightenment).
Being enlightened means you have attained Buddhism, so that is incredibly amazing.
The Buddha is free to exist; he has no extraterrestrial detachment, no influence, no desire, and no suffering.
They transcend time and place, and are immeasurable by human intelligence.

In the time of the Buddha, there were Buddhas, so I was able to listen directly to sermons, and I was able to seek guidance on ascetic practices.
So many disciples gained enlightenment.
There were many Buddhas who had the same state of enlightenment as Buddha and were equipped with the six gods.

The Buddha explains the trend of the times called [Seifo], [Image Law], and [Suho].
[Shohō] refers to the 500 years since the Buddha passed away, and it is an age where there are correct teachings and proper ascetic practices, and there are people who understand.
[Image method] refers to 1000 years after that, and it is an age where there are correct teachings and proper ascetic practices, yet no one can understand it.
[Last Dharma] refers to 10,000 years after that, and although there are correct teachings, it is an age where there are correct teachings, neither people who practice properly, nor do people understand.

In the Shohō era, there were many Buddhas (enlightened people) even if there was no Buddha.
The basis of today's Japanese Buddhism is that not only Buddha preached, but that Buddha and other enlightened Buddhas preached many Buddhist sutras, which are said to be 84,000 types.
So, there were many enlightened people in the past.

However, now is the age of the end law.
There are teachings, but there are no people who practice properly, and they don't understand.
So, “Why are there Buddhist teachings?” It is quite natural that the question arises.
Rather than saying who is at fault, it is unavoidable because the present day is the end of the law, as explained by the Buddha.

The teachings of Buddha (Buddha, Shakyamuni) are teachings for eliminating and controlling worries and suffering.
Worries and suffering occur to each individual, so I think the teachings were also explained to each individual.
In fact, there is also a story in the sutras where the Buddha was asked a question by someone and answered it.

It can be said that enlightenment is the elimination of worry, which is the cause of worry and suffering.
There are four stages of enlightenment, and ten kinds of afflictions disappear in four steps.

Once all ten kinds of afflictions disappear, it's the goal of the four stages of enlightenment, enlightenment of Aro Han Guo.
Buddha himself attained enlightenment in Aro Kanko (overcoming all ten types of afflictions), and then was taught teachings that lead others to enlightenment and tips for reducing worries and suffering.

Whether or not there is free will is probably “there” empirically.
You can go shopping and decide what to buy.
There will also be “trouble” from an empirical point of view.
Buddhism teaches us so that we don't have to feel the worries and suffering we feel.
I think Buddhism is a teaching that works specifically on the mind and body, changes the state of mind and body, and eliminates and controls worries and suffering.

They may respond even though they don't really understand the intent of the question.

“This is because I recognize that it is the disappearance of an 'individual' who takes it as a personal matter.”
Yumi is perceived in this way, isn't she?

However, don't you think that even if the Buddha realized it, the individual did not disappear?
That's why the teachings were explained by personal intention (even though they were told by Bonten).
So there is room for individual free will and choice.
If the Buddha had no choice, he would have died after realizing it.

I don't think spreading the teachings of saving people is necessary for individuals who have disappeared.
Spreading the teachings of saving people may be necessary for “enlightened people.”

Isn't it impossible to understand (be convinced) that there is mercy in a state of enlightenment (wisdom)?
But there is a world we cannot understand (recognize), and that may be the world of enlightenment.