Call for links

Cult

I said in the last thread, go read the Former SGI Member Forum. The thread of messages starts here:

http://forum.rickross.com/read...

Or you can fastforward to more recent messages here:

http://forum.rickross.com/read...

As of today, there are 207 pages of comments from former SGI members expressing their hurt and dismay about their experiences with Soka Gakkai. Some express fear of the organization. These messages are from real people with real, direct knowledge of the SGI organization.

You can dismiss their comments as being from disgruntled former members. But as someone commented on that forum, maybe you should start investigating why SGI has so many "disgruntled" former members.

What does any of this have to do with Nichiren Buddhism? SGI has little to do with the actual practice and teachings of Nichiren Buddhism. In my opinion, Soka hijacked Nichiren and built a lucrative personality cult around Daisaku Ikeda under the guise of "Nichiren Buddhism."

SGI has spent billions of dollars over many decades promoting a completely distorted version of Nichiren Buddhism throughout the world.

Daimoku is not a get-rich-quick prosperity chant. It's not about "fulfilling your dreams" with some new-age sparkle-pony ritual. It's not a tool for achieving goals and succeeding in your career. It's not about putting anyone up on a pedestal. It's not even about world peace.

Nichiren Buddhism is about awakening to the mystic law which has always been in your life, and which permeates all life. It's a very specific practice and deep analysis of life itself. It's not about swaying the universe so you can get what you want.

"If only I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say that the Soka skunk has changed its stripe." -- auntie

---

by: mroaks @ Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 19:34:46 PM UTC

depends on who you ask/

"It's not about "fulfilling your dreams" with some new-age sparkle-pony ritual. It's not a tool for achieving goals and succeeding in your career"

I'l agree with you completely though the Gosho says other wise. Who is the authority who can say what daimoku is for, you?

---

by: clown hidden @ Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 22:28:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

conspicuous/inconspicuous

Surely, the "get-rich-quick prosperity" philosophy is not the copyright of one organization?  Let's not kid ourselves about the "get-rich-quick prosperity" game.  This is part of what seems to be our planet's historical narrative and it finds expression in whatever means can easily be transmitted to the masses, plain and simple.   If adopting a Nichiren buddhist practice, you are influenced to accept this "get-rich-quick prosperity" mindset it is largely because this has been transmitted to you for lifetime and after lifetime through a variety of means.  I will admit, the most powerful expression of this misguided philosophy seems to be right now!  

However, if one adopts a Nichiren practice through this or that lay organization or this or that temple, it is up to the individual to become and accept that they very well might be a buddha of inconspicuous benefits, though they may appear to others or want to appear to others as material beings in desperate search of conspicuous benefits.  I'm not sure one can both fully and truly believe in the practice and actually practice(!) and also believe truly and fully in emancipation through only material gain, not for long anyway.  

The 'material benefit' itself will become sentient, if not a composite manifestation,  and it will not stand for the attention that you give to your practice to outweigh the ever-exponentially expanding attention it hungers for.  This is hell and it is vast.

---

by: frank booth @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 15:28:18 PM UTC

correction

I meant to say "the desire for" the 'material benefit' itself will become sentient, if not a composite manifestation.

gassho

---

by: frank booth @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 15:43:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hollow World

That is the power of practicing the actual. :)

Though they may start practicing to attain material benefit, they will soon find that the world of desire is a hollow world.
Rev. Taishin Takano

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 16:01:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Link and comment

I was asked if I was familiar with this site:

http://americangongyo.org/inde...

It is a resource for people who want to learn "American gongyo." The site obviously promotes the SGI/materialistic interpretation of daimoku.

Mroaks, on that page you'll find a list of "10 Good Reasons to Chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" [sic.]  It is a concise list of 10 Ways People Distort Buddhism Through Ego and Materialism.

The first item on the list: "Use the Ultimate Law of the Universe for Your Real Happiness (a.k.a. Enlightenment or Buddhahood)."

In other words, this is a practice that serves your egoistic desire to attain something. It is a way to get what you want.

To echo Frank's point, Nichiren Buddhism is not the only teaching that is co-opted by materialistic desire, also known as greed. Actually, this is commonplace in the U.S. Prosperity gospel can be found in New Age, Christian, Buddhist and almost every other tradition in America.

Many practitioners of Nichiren Buddhism in the U.S. do not even question this overemphasis on materialism. Many seem to think it's what makes Nichiren Buddhism so wonderfully Western in its sensibility! It does not occur to most people that the teachings have been distorted to appeal to our greed.

Many people practice Nichiren Buddhism because they have been told it will help them get whatever they want, whether they want a baggie of marijuana or a happy marriage. This is a far cry from Nichiren's own statement that being a votary of the Lotus Sutra is a "bitter but unavoidable destiny."

I know that many of us on this site began chanting with the motive of getting something we wanted. At what point do we or did we or can we practice without being motivated by greed?

---

by: auntie @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 16:33:41 PM UTC

THE LOTUS SUTRA AND THE GOSHO

The Lotus Sutra and the Gosho are filled with similar promises of happiness and gain.
I never practiced with that intention so I never had to give it up. I have always praticed because I liked practicing and have no other goal to achieve by it. If people want to use it as a self help therapy I have no objection nor do I fault them for doing so.
As long as a starving person isn't so deluded as to die chanting for food instead of going and getting some what is the harm?

---

by: clown hidden @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 17:12:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Link

Barbara's Buddhism Blog:

Buddhism is a means to realize something, but Buddhism doesn't have a patent on what it is that is realized. As we Zennies say, it's a hand pointing to the moon, not the moon itself. Some of the great mystics of the world's other religions have at least glimpsed this same moon, I believe. I once heard my first Zen teacher, the late John Daido Loori, call Saint Teresa of Ávila one of his spiritual ancestors.

Also, read the comments, which cite Thich Nhat Hanh's 14 precepts of engaged Buddhism:

1. Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

---

by: deardenver @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 17:39:20 PM UTC

Zen

That quote from Thich Nhat Hanh is completely false. It is born from the Daruma Shu.

The Zen you see today was taken over by the Daruma Shu with their Doctrine of the Void and their insistence on distancing themselves from the Sutra's.

Both Dogen and Chi-i said that the Daruma Shu was false. Dogen was the founder of Soto Zen and Chi-i used Zen in its pure form as a part of his practice, and there were more well known Buddhists that have also spoken out against the Daruma Shu.

This doctrine amounts to a kind of antinomianism, and reflects an intellectual or elitist approach to religious experience. It marks a strong departure from traditional Buddhism, which is based on the observance of morality and the practice of meditation. Indeed, it paved the way to a rejection of all practices, including meditation.

Yosai's criticism of the Daruma-shu is found mainly in a chapter of Kozen Gokokuron titled Sejin Ketsugiron or 'On Solving the Doubts of Worldly People'. It can be summarized under two related headings: the Daruma-shu's doctrine is a typical case of attachment to the false view of emptiness, a heresy often condemned in Mahayana Buddhism; and this attachment leads to a rejection of practice and morality

Don't believe me? Read it yourself.
http://thezensite.com/ZenEssay...

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 18:51:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shocker

That quote from Thich Nhat Hanh is completely false.

Huh? are you saying that Hanh never said such a thing? Or are you saying that Hanh is incorrect?

Do you mean that we should be idolatrous of doctrines and should regard them not as guides but as absolute truth?

Yep. That attitude is a recipe for fundamentalist intolerance. Hanh is right about that.

However, I can't say that I'm shocked to see you defend the absolute truth of the doctrines you embrace, markp.

"If only I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say that the Soka skunk has changed its stripe." -- auntie

---

by: mroaks @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 19:05:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shocked?

Buddhism is absolute truth. It is the misinterpretation of truth that is the problem, not the truth as-it-is. The Daruma Shu misinterpret Buddhism and they have been told of their misinterpretation by the Masters, even one of their own founders.
Thich NOT Hahn advocates nothing because he believes in the Doctrine of the Void.

Fundamental intolerance stems from a lack of knowledge or an incorrect view. In the case of Buddhism, the intolerance you refer to as seen in some Nichiren sects comes from a lack of knowledge of the Dharma, citing Nichiren and proclaiming that 'only through faith can one attain the way'.
Faith does not preclude study. It is, in fact, study that is the basis of faith, yet those that proclaim this can be found to be lacking in study.

'Furthermore, with regard to the attainment of Buddhahood in one's present form, the theoretical teaching is the gate that makes entry possible, while the essential teaching is the true doctrine that makes the attainment of Buddhahood in one's present form possible.'
The Attainment of Buddhahood in Principle and in Its Actual Aspect

Of course, everyone is free to think what they want, because they will anyway even if it leads them to nothing.

There is a Fundamental Truth, whether anyone is aware of it or not.

Being neither cause nor effect, with or without a Buddha enlightened to it, its nature and appearance are always as they are, being the same everywhere in all places. Therefore it is said to be 'The One That (Is As-It-Is)'.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 21:00:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

addendum

When you're talking about Buddhism, you cannot say that the doctrine of Theravadin is incorrect, or the doctrine of Pureland is incorrect, or the doctrine of Nichiren is incorrect. We all share the same doctrine. That doctrine is called the sutras.

When talking about Zen we have a completely different thing altogether. Pure Zen shares the same doctrine, however, Daruma Shu Zen does not. Daruma Shu advocates the divorce of the doctrine which leads to divorce of the morality of the doctrine.

This is what leads to Nanking!


Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 21:48:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Buddhism is absolute truth

Buddhism is absolute truth.

I have the understanding that no one can claim that their views are the absolute truth.
I believe the Buddha said as much.  

---

by: clown hidden @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 22:08:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

cite it

Cite it.

The Buddha said no such thing. He said that all truth is Buddhism. Hence, Buddhism is the absolute truth.


Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 23:06:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ultimate truth

He said reality was the ultimate truth, but he also said that no view of reality was completely correct.

Maybe if I have time I'll look up a citation for you.

Everyone knows the chinese interpretation that emptiness is the absolute truth but that even that is not true apart from the conditional truth of temporary existence. So even the absolute truth is not the absolute truth.

---

by: clown hidden @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 23:42:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

reality

The Buddha said that reality is as-it-is. He also said that people have differing views on reality, but the fact that you can't see the reality has no impact on the reality as-it-is. All that means is you haven't opened your eyes. It doesn't mean that there are multiple realities [based on conditioning] in regards to the true reality.

At first I thought you had bought the Christian attempt to say the Buddha did not yet know the truth, which is a corruption of the Buddhas words, 'I have not yet revealed the truth'.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 23:59:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

citing

Sabbadanam dhammadanam jinati
'The gift of truth excels all other gifts.'

At the age of 35, meditating under a Bodhi tree, Siddhartha reached Enlightenment, awakening to the true nature of reality, which is Nirvana (Absolute Truth);

The dustless and stainless Eye of Truth (Dhamma-cakkhu) has arisen.
He has seen Truth, has attained Truth, has known Truth, has penetrated into Truth, has crossed over doubt, is without wavering.
Thus with right wisdom he sees it as it is (yatha bhutam) ... The Absolute Truth is Nibbana, which is Reality. (Buddha, from the Dhatuvibhanga-sutta (No. 140) of the Majjhima-nikaya)

I will teach you the Truth and the Path leading to the Truth. (Buddha)

The Buddha says, You should do the work, for the Tathagatas only teach the way. (Dhp. XX 4.)
(Tathagata means 'One who has come to Truth'. This is the term usually used by the Buddha referring to himself and to the Buddhas in general.) (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught)

Therefore, O bhikkhu, a person so endowed is endowed with the absolute wisdom, for the knowledge of the extinction of all dukkha is the absolute noble wisdom.
This his deliverance, founded on Truth, is unshakable. O Bhikkhu, that which is unreality (mosadhamma) is false; that which is reality (amosadhamma) is Nibbana, is Truth (Sacca). Therefore O Bhikkhu, a person so endowed is endowed with this Absolute Truth. For, the Absolute Truth (paramam ariyasaccam) is Nibbana, which is Reality.'
(Buddha, from the Dhatuvibhanga-sutta (No. 140) of the Majjhima-nikaya) (Rahula, p38-9)

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 23:20:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

is the cesasation of suffering the Absolute Truth?

From Wikipedia

The Buddha of the earliest Buddhists texts describes Dharma (in the sense of "truth") as "beyond reasoning" or "transcending logic", in the sense that reasoning is a subjectively introduced aspect of the way humans perceive things, and the conceptual framework which underpins it is a part of the cognitive process, rather than a feature of things as they really are. Being "beyond reasoning" means in this context penetrating the nature of reasoning from the inside, and removing the causes for experiencing any future stress as a result of it, rather than functioning outside of the system as a whole.

Most Buddhists agree that, to a greater or lesser extent, words are inadequate to describe the goal of the Buddhist path, but concerning the usefulness of words in the path itself, schools differ radically.

---

by: clown hidden @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 23:53:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the absolute

More from Wikipedia while I look for a quote from the Pali

The Buddha of the early scriptures rejected fixed views of an Absolute, or a transempirical reality, focusing his system on the empirically given.[4][5][6][7][8] This empiricism is based broadly on both ordinary sense experience and extrasensory perception enabled by high degrees of mental concentration.[9] There is no text in which the Buddha explicitly argues that the universe lacks an essence; he instead mocks positions regarding an ultimate nature of reality - such as those found in the Upanishads - in the manner of later Prasangikas.[10] The Buddha of the early texts does speak of experiencing "luminous consciousness" beyond the six sense media.[11] Passages in which the Buddha criticizes those who talk about things not amenable to experience are quite common in the early texts.[7] Some of the Buddha's followers have not held to this paradigm.[6]

Some prominent Buddhist philosophers have; Nagarjuna, one of the most prominent philosopher of Mahayana Buddhism, was misinterpreted by early scholarship as propounding an absolutist doctrine with his development of the Buddhist concept of shunyata. This is now universally regarded as incorrect and in no way grounded on textual evidence.[12] Nagarjuna defended the classical Buddhist emphasis on phenomena.[13] For him shunyata is explicitly used as a middle way between absolutism and nihilism, and that is where its soteriological power lies. It does not refer to an ultimate, universal, or absolute nature of reality.[14] Holding up emptiness as an absolute or ultimate truth without reference to that which is empty is the last thing either the Buddha or Nagarjuna would advocate.[15] Nagarjuna criticized those who viewed shunyata as an Absolute: "The Victorious Ones have announced that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible."[16]

By contrast, still later schools of Chinese Buddhism, particularly those under the sway of Tathagatagarbha scriptures, affirmed the notion of a (loosely speaking) positive absolute, identifying if with the true or original substance of the Buddha, though they were frequently challenged in this by other Chinese Buddhists. In postulating an underlying, invariant, universal metaphysical "source", these schools returned to the metaphysical assumptions that had flourished in China before Buddhism's arrival.[17]

Kant questioned whether the absolute can be thought.

People have always spoken of the absolutely necessary (absolutnotwendigen) being, and have taken pains, not so much to understand whether and how a thing of this kind can even be thought, but rather to prove its existence.... if by means of the word unconditioned I dismiss all the conditions that the understanding always requires in order to regard something as necessary, this does not come close to enabling me to understand whether I then still think something through a concept of an unconditionally necessary being, or perhaps think nothing at all through it.

- Critique of Pure Reason, A593

Nietzsche criticized Hegel's claims about the non-relative Absolute.

Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. ... Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness," somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it.

- Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, § 11.

---

by: clown hidden @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 00:41:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pali Cannon

Those quotes came from the Pali Cannon, which is prior to Mahayana. You can dispute all you want, but the Theravadins would disagree.

Much as you want to rationalize your own existence through the works of scholars interpreting that which they have no understanding, Buddhism confirms only the reality as-it-is.

Keep on rationalizing! That is the way of the un-awakened.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:01:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Truth

Buddha taught that there was a relative truth which is conventional reality and an ultimate truth which is nirvana.
The first is easily understood. The second is only explained by negation and is considered beyond conception. Rather than teach anything about it he suggested a path for it's realization.
For example we have heard that Buddha taught the doctrine of no-self. So believing the Buddha we may believe that there is no self. However the purpose of teh Buddha in teaching no-self was not to make the ontological statement that there is no self but rather no-self was taught as an excercise to enable one on the path to the cessation of suffering. The Buddha didn't care about ontological truths but considered them a waste of time. His only concern was mental and moral disciplines that could be used to end suffering.

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"
-----------------------
Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path along with the Twelve-linked Chain of Causation. All of these were of use in finding peace of mind.

I don't lke the Dali Lama's politics but he has studied a thing or two about buddhism

Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith.

"Buddha was speaking about reality," says Dalai Lama. "Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition - that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism."

"Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so."

"In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.'

---

by: clown hidden @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:47:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quotes and links

1. If you quote from another page on the web, provide a link.

2. Do not cut and paste long passages from other sites. Even with attribution, it's not cool.

3. If you quote, place the quoted passage in a quote box. It's easy. Just select the text and click the little gray button below that says "Quote." It's located between the "Italic" and "Preview" buttons.

4. Battles involving Dueling Quotes are generally the lamest arguments online. Just saying.

---

by: buddhajones @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:23:41 AM UTC