Buddha's teachings: postscript

I think the laws taught by Shakyamuni were explained so that humans can maintain social order and live.
However, even if you explain the same words to everyone, they won't be conveyed because each person has different values and circumstances. Therefore, it was explained in various words according to the counterpart theory, that is, according to the opponent.
At the root of that teaching, I think it is still explained how to live properly. Note that even if it is correct, it means that it is correct as Buddha.
If I read the article on the site you introduced from that point of view, would it be a little different? I thought so.
It's the most counterfactual theory, so that theory may be appropriate for the author of that book and some readers, but I just thought it was slightly different.
I don't know what words you need, but I want you to find them by reading various documents, asking questions to monks, and putting them into practice in real life.
Let's work hard together.

　I haven't read that book, so I can't say anything, but at least I don't think “Buddha's teachings are to be NEET.”
The monastic style in India may certainly be very similar to NEET, but it is similar and different. Also, I don't think that book encourages readers to become NEET.

It looks like they want to learn Buddhism, but they seem to be entering the wrong place.

To learn about Buddhism, I think it's a good idea to read the Buddha's biography. I think the Buddha's biography is filled with the essence of Buddhism.
Why don't you read Tezuka Osamu's “Buddha” first? The Buddha's biography is written in comics. There is also a creative part, so you need to be careful, but I think it's done carefully in an easy-to-understand manner.

I'm also a fan of Mr. Uokawa. The content of “zero points” may be used for responses. There is a Buddhist book called Goman that writes big lies to the world, but Mr. Uokawa is an author you can trust.

I also sympathize with the content of the link (because if you say it's correct, you'll look at it from above).
I write “gentle,” “correct,” and “healthy,” as “good,” and categorize things that have been examined in a Buddhist way as “good,” so it's confusing, but the same idea.
Speaking of recent answers, is it easy to imagine my answer below?
https://hasunoha.jp/questions/30054

However,
> It's not a teaching for “being humanly useful in society” at all.
I think “at all” is an overstatement. For example, I read in some books a long time ago that he preached “go on a diet” to King Pasenadi of the Kosala country (although I forgot the source), “use half of your income as a source of work, save a quarter for when something happens, and use the remaining quarter for living expenses,” and “you have to eat meat once in a while.”

Many people, not just Mr. Uogawa, dismiss them as worldly and humble teachings, but those are still Buddha's words, right? There are also places where people are affected by the desocial part and the social part. I would like you to research such places and bring them out to the world. Aren't you all interested?

Also, I digress from your question...
In “Zero Point of Buddhist Thought,” Mr. Uokawa compared the pure part of the Theravada with the private sector part of Japanese Buddhism and wrote “Japanese Buddhism is a level where Theravada monks laugh at it.” That's unfair.

Even in the Theravada region, Buddhism for the private sector is a storm of present and future benefits. The point is that there is a deep meaning of the two-stage argument... but then isn't there a deep meaning of that two-stage argument in Japanese Buddhism? That's the story. While reading “Zero Point,” I said over and over again, “No, the exact same thing is written in “Shoho Genzo” and in the book advocating it (like a recording of a lecture taught by a modern Zen master to a Zen monk).” I thought so. What you don't know is unavoidable. It is ridiculous to say that you should be familiar with all the texts of all denominations. But if that's the case, I don't want you to go out of your way to disparage it. I strongly criticize this unfair argument. It's a pity (core joke)

Is this correct? I think that's correct. The way you were born without any sign of exploration is what a Buddha looks like.
Humans are the ones who think about this and this and try to understand it with logic before putting it into practice. However, if you don't stop doing this, you won't understand the Buddha's enlightenment.
It was noticed that the Buddha did nothing at all during his ascetic practice.
In other words, it's Zen.

I made every effort not to touch it. I stopped thinking about it and understanding it with logic. I was saved by stopping following my memories and imagining the future, and not imagining goals or anything like this is enlightenment, and really just being the way I am now.

Right now, you're trying to somehow understand it with your head.

It seems that the courage to stop it is running out. I think it would be best if you could feel clean and receive guidance from a monk called an orthodox teacher. It's the same as not being able to taste it no matter how many times you read a cookbook, and it's something you don't understand until you experience it, so no matter how many questions you ask here, it's not refreshing. Even though I can show the direction of my training here, I have to find the real thing myself.
No food is a gossip, and you'll be convinced if you eat one bite. That's it. Buddhism is nothing special. ^_^

Inquirer

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

There are many books that discuss Buddhism, but in Buddhism, it is important to actually move towards enlightenment according to monks.

To that end, above all else, a “Bodhi Heart” is essential.

To be honest, arguments lacking that “Bodhi Heart” and arguments that don't involve Shudo are not very useful. Furthermore, if I had to say one more thing, it was also Sanpo Kiyoshi.

However, the above is also something that can only be understood while walking in Buddhism.

Evidence rather than argument.

The step by step in Buddhism will be proof of this.

By all means, I would be grateful if you could prepare me so that I can walk in Buddhism.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

I read your question.
There are Buddhist books by various authors, but when I read them, the current situation is that there are quite a few explanations mixed with the author's biases and assumptions.
Under such circumstances, I think Uokawa's book shows an understanding of Buddhism that is extremely faithful to the text.

Their preferences may be divided because they use catchy phrases, but it is true that Shakyamuni asked monks to abandon labor and reproduction. (As expected, I'm not asking for homeowners)

If you look at the teachings about monks as Shakyamuni's true intentions, then Buddhism cannot be said to be a social teaching.
If everyone abandons labor and reproduction, society will perish.
Even in the famous episode “Bonten Kanjo,” Shakyamuni doesn't say that he will explain to everyone.
Also, since the Buddhist Order is 100% managed by donations from society, if everyone keeps the teachings of Shakyamuni monks, the Order itself will not be formed.

So, when it comes to who Shakyamuni preached his teachings, I think he was targeting “people who have a hard time living, people who have a hard time and are unbearable.”
Please try to learn it.