Non-self-opinion (selflessness theory) and opinion

I would like to know the difference between non-self theory (selflessness theory) and the Buddha's denied opinion
Causal theory may also be involved, but I see that “living things occur due to relationships.”
And I think that view is basically “in line with the Buddhist view”
However, I think there is a very high affinity between this “opinion” that “living things occur due to relationships” and “the five pillars are me”
And “opinion” has been denied by the Buddha
If it's a commandment as an “act,” I somehow understand that it “denies my opinion” (thank you, Mr. Tange),
If “the facts aren't like that, so don't look at them like that,” then “huh? If that's the case, isn't it actually me...?” It's going to become
Buddhism is just a practical religion, and it is different from science and other religions that pursue truth or truth,
If so, I just misunderstood it in the first place, but maybe because Buddhism is so superior and scientific (there are few delusional places and it is easy to see truth and truth),
In particular, there is a part where I think “I” and “cause and effect” are stories about “truth or truth”
I would like you to tell me about the error in this matter

As a supplement to this point of view,
In the first place, I think it was because my interest in Buddhism stemmed from such truths and truths
More specifically, it's like “you can do it because it's right, and you should do it”
I think enlightenment is probably something like that in me
I don't think it's an area where people say “it won't be painful once you understand” and say “well then I don't want to suffer, so I'll do my best”
Aside from the “what is goodness” in “getting better,” it's like going to the library if you're told “if you just want to be a little better, go to the library”
I know that Buddhism is on the equinox, which is far from right and wrong in the general sense of the word, but I think it's because I feel it's not the kind of thing where I just get there for myself

5 Zen Responses

I read your question.
First, the “I” indicated in Buddhism is the self presiding over Tsuneichi, which was preached by the Brahmanism at the time.
We are not denying that we are temporarily reconciled with the five elements that fluidly change due to various experiences and influences in our lives.

Also, there is a difference between the selfless theory and the non-selfish theory.
The selfless theory says, “There is no such thing as me who always presides over.” That being said, the non-personal theory is “not here, but I am always in charge somewhere.” It's something like that.
Professor Nakamura Hajime and his disciples proposed a non-personal theory, but it seems that it has almost been denied in today's academic community.

Buddhism in a thousand characters

◯Premise
The purpose of Buddhism is to leave suffering, not to investigate the structure of the world. However, in order to get rid of suffering, we must know the mechanism by which suffering occurs and disappears. A mechanism such as the Five Pillars was discussed as a means to that end.

① What is bitterness?
Suffering in Buddhism is mainly life, old age, illness, and death.

② What causes suffering?
It's an obsession with myself. I wanted to be born better. I don't want to grow old. I don't want to get sick myself. I don't want to die. I don't want that to happen to people close to me. How do you deal with that self? That is the theme of Buddhism.

③ What is the cause of the disappearance of suffering?
My eyes are my eyes, not me. Not everyone is your protein or calcium. It's just that various things come together, and while they work separately, they all harmonize and integrate as a whole to become one person.
I realized that and said, “This body is mine!” If it becomes commonplace to assert ownership, the obsession with oneself will disappear. And the bitterness will go away.

④ So, don't you exist?
For example, does Japan exist? When you say “this is Tokyo” or “this is Kagoshima,” Japan is hidden away. However, when 47 prefectures are mixed up, it's still Japan. However, when the whole world was taken over, it was Earth and space, and Japan was hidden. So I can say I have it or I can say it doesn't.
Similarly, I can say myself, protein, myself, and the world. It's a no-no. (I'm not saying that you can say that you have or don't have a soul. (There is no way to observe)

⑤ So what should I think about it?
They go through a world where there is no place to grab, with a single skewer called mercy, and live with a straight direction toward salvation. That is Buddhism.

⑥ So what is mercy?
I am both myself and the world at the same time. The world is itself. Attacking others is therefore an act of self-harm. The way you value others as yourself is merciful.

> Even if it's too much
Even if it doesn't come
Even now (now)
There is no such thing as owning (own)
without owning (having)
No offense
The person I'm afraid of
Brahmin and Yoban
(Okku Kyō 421, translated by Tomomatsu Enshi)

The view of guessing or looking at things is not enlightenment.

Even if Buddhism or the study of Buddhism are fascinating, after all, there is a lot of speculation.
I was also caught up with this and that, but when it came to talking about various things, it became a bit confusing, so keep it simple.
First of all, subjectivity gets in the way quite a bit.
Even when they talk like this, they seem to be able to read sentences when the person's subjectivity is strong, and they can't read it.
It's an opinionated way of reading “My Style, My Style.”
It's a good idea to be aware that this is where my opinion comes from.
no way, huh? this one too? huh? Hey, is this one too? (°°°;)
Kellon stops when she realizes that her own opinions are at work. Namunamu

There is no self in the five swords

I'm sorry I don't have the original text at hand, but Shakyamuni must have denied that “the five verses are me,” and that something within the five parts is me.

It has been summed up as Tsuneichi's denial of himself.

There must be a corresponding text in Sanyutta Nikaya (corresponding part) that gives examples one by one and denies them as “this is not me, it is not mine, it is not my self (essence).”

I looked for it on the internet, but I couldn't find it, so I'll post a link to the following reference site for now.
https://www28.atwiki.jp/buddha/pages/31.html

Everything is lucky and empty

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

In Buddhism, “I” which is denied as “impersonal” or “selfishness,” or “I” in “selfishness,” which is denied, is an “entity,” or “selfishness.”

For example, even in the thing in front of you right now, when it comes to whether something tangible that defines the thing itself and doesn't change forever is somewhere on the side of the thing itself, it means that no matter where you search for such a thing, you can't find such a thing.

This is called “sky.”

Of course, that's not the case when it comes to whether the thing in front of you isn't there. This is actually possible, but it is made up of causality (cause and condition) or the gathering of various elements.

This is called “luck,” and I call it “luck.”

It means “everything is auspicious and empty.”

We are also described as being the existence of a “five-way provisional union,” assuming that it is hypothetically formed for the time being due to the fact that the elements of each of the five functions come together.

Of course, enlightenment is also made up of the gathering of causes and relationships for enlightenment, and it is something that becomes auspicious in emptiness.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

← all dialogues ← previous next →