Two sides of zuiho bini

Practice

Hi, Brooke. I don't know if this response will really get at the point you're making. But I've been thinking a lot about practice -- the practical aspects of being a Nichiren Buddhist in the U.S., while not being a member of any organized Nichiren group.

Some people say that we have to join an organization to practice correctly. Maybe so. I enjoy having a group of people with whom I practice -- people who are not necessarily my friends, not my family, but a group of people that I care about in a unique way because we are sharing spiritual exploration and growth.

Sure, there are people with whom I chant -- a few good friends -- and this is great. Still, I definitely feel a need to involve myself more in the communal dimension of religious experience.

I've said before that I like Nichiren Shu. But there's not a lot of Nichiren Shu stuff happening in my locale.

I have checked out other Buddhist groups such as Shambhala and Zen. They're lovely people, but their daily practice is very different than Nichiren-style daily practice.

So I have been checking out the Unitarian Universalists. And I'm liking them a lot. To my mind, UU is simpatico with the Lotus Sutra, and totally cool with Nichiren Buddhists. Historically, UU has been involved with the Rissho Kosei Kai.

So what's not to like? I could quibble with the vocabulary, I guess. UU ministers talk about God and Jesus. How could they not? Judeo-Christian thought is part of the fabric of American society.

The more I hang with UU, the more I like it. I would even encourage other Nichiren Buddhists who are looking for a "home" to check it out.

Because of UU's christian roots, connecting with them is an exercise in zuiho bini, to be sure.

To me, zuiho bini means softening whatever religious dogmatism one feels, and opening up enough to recognize that dharma is dharma even if it's called by another name. The truths of the Lotus Sutra are universal, even when expressed in different words and imagery.

---

by: deardenver @ Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 18:47:39 PM UTC

Zuiho Bini

Brooke,
We had a discussion on this over at FWP and here you've brought up yet another perspective that hadn't been broached. Good points.

I've always argued that everything Nichiren wrote was in context to an individual with the exception of about ten of his letters which were general critiques.

That being said, I've evolved to a point where I think even ole Nichiren is working with bad info.  

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:24:28 AM UTC

zweeho

Here's a link to the FWP discussion Joe mentioned:
http://fraughtwithperil.com/jo...

Good question: how would you translate zuiho bini into English?

---

by: Nine Lives @ Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 18:37:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Equality

Thank you for the post, B.

You wrote:

"For me, zuiho bini is double edged. On one hand, it can be used to minimize objections to cultural norms that perpetuate inequality."

I'm assuming you're in the U.S.  I am.

One of the most important things that makes us Americans is that we are held together as a nation based on some fundamental ideas including the universal equality of all people - The Founding Fathers wrote in the document establishing our nation, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  In a sense, to be an American is, among other things, to believe in universal equality.  A critical theme in our shared history is the realization of equality in practice as well as theory - the most prominent struggle for the realization of equality has been the status of blacks - from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement - even the election of Barack Obama.  Another prominent struggle was the Suffragist Movement and the pursuit for the ERA.  It'd be too to explore all the ways in which our assumption about the equality of all people plays out in the way we frame the world we live in, but I am hoping I have outlined the thing I'm pointing out adequately to move on.

My point is that to critique Nichiren's approach to Zuiho Bini as being tolerant of cultural norms that perpetuate inequality is itself a culturally informed critique which takes the assumptions of "American" ideals (for lack of a better shorthand at this time) as the baseline against which "enlightenment" is judged.

I think a better way to approach zuiho bini might be to adopt the approach Nichiren himself practiced rather than the practice of adopting Nichiren as the approach.  That might be confusing.

To put it in other words - instead of asking, "What Would Nichiren Do?" and looking to his writings as precedent, we ought to actually do what Nichiren Nichiren seems to have done which was ask, "What Would the True Buddha do?"  To elaborate on that a little bit - What the True Buddha would do is, according to Nichiren and other Lotus Sutra Buddhists, is to accept that the Lotus Sutra reveals what the True Buddha does.  

Is the struggle for the realization of political, social and economic equality an ideal of the Lotus Sutra?  Quite possibly, in some contexts, like ours.  It may not be in a system where society is organized along Confucian or feudal ideals, for instance.  Confucian and feudal systems, even despotic authoritarian systems, have within them means of regulation and equilibrium.  In Confucian ideals, we see principles like "jen" (brotherly love) and the Mandate of Heaven.  In Feudal systems we have the simple question of who can round up the strongest army when needed.  

A while back I did a comparative study of human rights and Buddhist ethics.  I concluded that they are not compatible, and that the idea of Human Rights in fact embodies a wrong view from the perspective of Buddhism.  With that said, I made the argument that human rights advocacy could be made to be a practice of Buddhism, akin to the rationale underlying what we know in Nichiren circles as "expedient means" and "shakubuku".

I guess that's a bit of a long winded proposal on another way that we might approach the question of "zuiho bini" and what it means for us as Americans.

---

by: Queequeg @ Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 19:55:17 PM UTC

Equality

Hi Queequeg --
Great commentary. I want to focus on this part:

A while back I did a comparative study of human rights and Buddhist ethics.  I concluded that they are not compatible, and that the idea of Human Rights in fact embodies a wrong view from the perspective of Buddhism.  With that said, I made the argument that human rights advocacy could be made to be a practice of Buddhism, akin to the rationale underlying what we know in Nichiren circles as "expedient means" and "shakubuku".

Yes, I live in the U.S. Part of my mission in this life (as I see it) is to harmonize my cultural, democratic values with my Buddhist values. For example, I have a strong cultural commitment to independence and individual freedom. At the same time, Buddhism elucidates that the nature of life is deeply interdependent, and freedom is a myth (to paraphrase the title of one of Chogyam Trungpa's books.)

So there's tension between two value systems that are equally important to me. How do I resolve the conflict? I could merely choose one set of values over the other. Or I can try to harmonize them.

People sometimes tell me that I'm not Buddhist enough, or that I am betraying Nichiren, or that I'm destroying the heart of the Lotus Sutra -- especially when I point out sexist assumptions among Buddhists. For example: The historical Buddha was male, and Nichiren was male, and this leads many modern-day Buddhists to assume that maleness is somehow closer to Buddhahood than femaleness. This assumption permeates Buddhist thought. The Lotus Sutra addresses it. Why? Because it's an assumption that votaries of the Lotus Sutra need to discard, along with assumptions about so-called evil people.

This is an ongoing struggle -- to see beyond shallow assumptions and gender differences, and to recognize Buddhahood.

You could say, "Duh, yeah, we've already figured that out. Men are no better than women." But no, we haven't "figured it out." Just look around and tell me how many female Buddhist priests you see. Compared to the number of men, how many women even participate in online discussions about Buddhism? Women are marginalized and shouted down in Buddhism. Still. Today. In America.

Sure, there are "pure" ivory-tower Buddhists who hold themselves above doing the dirty work of social engagement and social change. They tend to justify themselves with the argument that Buddhism is silent on issues of human rights and political policy. (I suggest reading this article on Occupy Wall Street for an alternative view.) On the other hand, there are socially engaged Buddhists who arbitrarily dispense with Buddhist teachings when they're inconvenient. In my opinion, neither of these approaches to Buddhism and social engagement is satisfactory.

---

by: brooke @ Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 19:06:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do you deal with two value systems?

"So there's tension between two value systems that are equally important to me. How do I resolve the conflict? I could merely choose one set of values over the other. Or I can try to harmonize them."

Don't take this the wrong way.  I'm just trying to discuss ideas and not directing anything personally to what you do as a practice.  

I think the idea of harmonizing conflicting thought/value systems is rejected in Nichiren-Lotus Buddhism.  According to this school of thought, American and Buddhist values are not equals to be harmonized.  One is a superior system, Lotus Buddhism, and one is an inferior system, American values.  This is an extension of the arguments Nichiren makes in his writings when he compares the various types of teachings - non-Buddhist/Buddhist, Hinayana/Mahayana, Provisional Mahayana/True Mahayana, True Mahayana/Lotus Sutra, Provisional/Essential, Essential/Daimoku.

Rather than harmonizing, the correct approach is to Open the Provisional to Reveal the Real.  The Real Aspect of the Provisional is revealed by viewing it as an expression of the Lotus Sutra.  Instead of making the two systems mutually intelligible,one comes to an understanding of the other system as an expression of the Buddha Dharma - without altering either in the least.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to adopt this view, and I hope no one takes it that way.  I'm just pointing out that this is the theory of the Lotus Sutra that underlies Nichiren Buddhism.

---

by: Queequeg @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:25:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

zuiho bini

Queequeg wrote:

I think the idea of harmonizing conflicting thought/value systems is rejected in Nichiren-Lotus Buddhism.

I can't answer for Brooke on the rest of it, but I do think you're in error on this point. The very concept of zuiho bini, which Nichiren clearly supports, is precisely about harmonizing cultural conflict.

Does democracy depart significantly the values of the Lotus Sutra? Does equal justice under law somehow violate the teachings of the Lotus Sutra? I don't think so. On the contrary, I think democratic values accord rather nicely with the sutra's universalist portrayal of enlightenment.

I am interested in hearing more about why you think otherwise, Queequeg.

---

by: Nine Lives @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 03:51:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ZB

Hi, NL,

I'll  start by pointing out how important the proper ranking of sutras was for Nichiren.  This was not just his concern, but can be traced back to the founder of the Lotus School of East Asian Buddhism, Chih-i and his early followers.  

In this connection, Nichiren abhorred the so-called "mixing clean with the unclean."  Basically, the Lotus Sutra should not be interpreted through any lens inferior to the Buddha's own enlightenment.  This is what he argued the various schools did when they ranked the Lotus below other Sutras - proclaiming one Sutra or another as the full expression of "Truth" and all others as functions of that Sutra.  Its obvious where Nichiren stood - the Daimoku sums his view up completely.  I think its Kaimoku Sho where Nichiren goes through a series of comparisons - Non-Buddhist-Buddhist, Hinayana-Mahayana, Provisional Mahayana-Mahayana, Mahayana-Lotus Sutra, Provisional-Essential, Essential-Daimoku.

So, in Nichiren-Lotus Buddhism we start with the Lotus Sutra as the expression of the highest truth.  Then how does everything else relate  to it?  

The best that I can gather, Nichiren doesn't concern himself with this much except in a few places.  His emphasis is always a grudging tolerance of ancillary practices, even recitation of the Nembutsu, but he is clear - the practice of Daimoku must be one's unquestioned primary practice.

Chih-i explores the relationship between provisional truths and ultimate truth in more depth and Nichiren seems to incorporate Chih-i's thought by refereence.  

One of the most important teachings in Lotus Buddhism is Upaya/Hoben - arguably, the whole of Lotus Buddhism is a full explication of Upaya/Hoben.  This teaching is ultimately tied in with the Buddha's infinite life span, but on the more 'practical' level described in the first half of the Lotus Sutra, it has a slightly different meaning (just as all dharmas in their more limited contexts have different meaning/significance than in broader contexts - a fundamental teaching of the Lotus Sutra also).  Basically, the Buddha tells Shariputra, "you think you have achieved the state of arhat and will shortly enter parinirvana, bringing the cycle of birth and death to an end. Actually, you are on the path to full blown Buddhahood and this sravaka path you've been following is really one leg on a much longer path to Buddhahood.  I told you about this goal of parinirvana because I knew your mind was too limited to accept that you are a Buddha to be."

Upaya sometimes gets interpreted as the Buddha lying, but this is explicitly rejected.  The Buddha is said to reveal partial truths, or to draw distinctions that accord with the mind of the listener to spur them on toward the goal of Buddhahood, with every intention of revealing the complete truth when the listener is ready - at that time the Buddha teaches the Lotus Sutra.  Chih-i described four ways the Buddha teaches beings - the Four Siddhantas - 1) in terms that accord with secular truths, 2) in terms of people's capacities, 3) therapeutic teachings to correct people's behavior, and 4) revelation of Truth to cause people to realize the Truth directly.

One of the remarkable things is that the first three truths are, in themselves, without the necessity of transforming them in the least, the fourth truth.  And moreover, the fourth truth cannot manifest except as one of or a combination of the first three truths.  Drawing a more general principal out of this, we find that the Buddha always responds perfectly to the needs of living beings - this response is so perfect that when we analyze it further, there really is no distinction between the need and the response.  They are the same function.  Here Chih-i takes this into the mutual possession of the ten worlds, but we want to look at zuiho bini.

As best I can make sense of it, zuiho bini functions at this level of Upaya/hoben.  It is not a prescription to change the Buddha Dharma - ie. to harmonize it with some provisional truth - as though one could even presume to do that.  In truth, that would just be your own conceit being projected onto the Buddha Dharma.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  In the end, The Buddha Does not Mind.  Doing that is itself the Stimulus Response relationship with the Buddha.

What we can do is take the world around us and find the Buddha expressing within it.  If we, as the causally conditioned things we are, see a need to change the norms in our society, then that is as natural as the sun rising - go do it.  It can even be a means of practicing the Buddha's teaching.  At the same time, if the misogyny of Buddhist communities is not acceptable in America, stop it doing it, and find communal expression of the Buddha Dharma that accords with our notions of equality between people of different sexual categories.

You can presume to find in the Buddha a political activist, but you're going to find yourself making a lot of ungrounded justification, and whether someone points it out to you or not, you'll find yourself trying to reconcile two ideas that are mutually unintelligible.  I looked at the Buddha Dharma justification of OWS, and frankly, TL;DR.  Its the same stuff that has been written for a while - people looking for the Buddha to pat them on the back and congratulate them for undertaking efforts at social change.  I always thought it was odd that some people in SG painted Nichiren as a political activist.  We're taking modern modes of being that are intimately tied in with our notions of constitutional government and democracy, and projecting them onto people who lived in relatively primitive feudal societies.  This is not to say that we can't find ways to express practice of Buddha Dharma in these modern contexts  - one way was my suggestion above that even something like HR advocacy could be approached as a Bodhisattva practice.

Just because advocacy for democratic values and equality are compatible with the Buddha Dharma, does not mean that advocacy of democratic values and equality encompass Buddha Dharma.  Buddha Dharma may express at times as Occupy Wall Street, but just as the first Three Siddhantas are both fulle expressions and limited expressions of the Full Blown Truth of Buddhahood, OWS is both a full and limited expression of Buddhahood.

I probably have done nothing to make my point any clearer.  Ultimately, I guess I'm suggesting, before we go "harmonizing", we might need to get a full understanding of the things we are "harmonizing".  And are we really harmonizing anything?  Or are we just gaining a deeper understanding of the world around us which in turn informs our activities?

---

by: Queequeg @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 14:14:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another approach

I offered up a bunch of theoretical explanation, so let me try a more practical approach.

"Don't recite the Sutra while you are having your period because it offends the sensibilities of our society."

There is no "harmonizing" here.  There is observation of community norms within a context of practicing the Lotus Sutra.  Similarly, one might engage in American style political activism within a context of practicing the Lotus Sutra.

I actually think this says more about what essential practice in the context of the Nichiren's teachings means than anything else.  

He makes a point that sometimes people tell you this prohibition to discourage your faith. If that's the case, they should be resisted.  However, in this Country, the Gods don't like it when women engage in Religious practice while having their period.  

Its like the patient who goes to the doctor, "Doc, whenever I put my finger in my ear, it hurts."  The doctor says, "Well, don't do that."  Same sort of thing - if it makes you feel uneasy, or causes you hardship to recite the sutra during your period - whether because of internalized guilt or flack from others, so long as your faith is unaffected, observe the norms.

At the same time, Nichiren could have equally said, "if you don't feel comfortable observing these norms and you only feel comfortable protesting these norms, protest the norms.  Just keep your faith."

The point of my response was Brooke's assumption that zuiho bini has one particular expression that necessarily means tolerance of intolerable norms.  In our society, we are conditioned to be offended by inequality and some of us are compelled to do something about it.  If you feel that norms must change, that is your Buddhanature finding expression - you feel uneasy about inequality because you are the response of the Buddha to inequality, and have been endowed with that reactive spirit to address it.  Chant Daimoku with faith that your activities are the activities of the Buddha - that you are the Buddha's votary, and protest the hoarding of the 1%.  That is Zuiho Bini also.

---

by: Queequeg @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 14:34:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's simple

Queequeg, I harmonize my cultural values and Buddhist values by chanting daimoku and living my life. I do my best to take bodhisattva action -- as I understand it, yes. This is the best that anyone can do.

Obviously, my understanding of bodhisattva actions is not the same as your understanding. The difference between us is that I don't insist that mine is correct and yours is incorrect.

You claim that Nichiren was adverse to protesting social and political norms -- and that protest is somehow incompatible with Buddhism. If you'll recall, Nichiren remonstrated tirelessly with government officials for political change. Frankly, this simple fact impresses me more than your long-winded theoretical interpretations of what Nichiren supposedly expects of his student.

You see bodhisattva action as people using Buddhism to "pat themselves on the back." My, such cheap criticism.

I'm sorry I can't adopt your fundamentalist views of Nichiren's teachings -- which boils down to Nichiren saying "my way or the highway." Nichiren's teachings lend themselves to fundamentalist interpretations, sure -- whether one insists that a state religion based on the Lotus Sutra MUST be established in today's nation -- or whether one insists that only an embrace of theory and daimoku can save the world. Both are fundy approaches that can be adequately justified.

My belief is that followers of Nichiren in the present day are called to do more than justify their precious theories and poses. We have to engage the teachings and make them our own, and bring them to life in our daily lives. And, yeah, this means having the balls to do, think, and say things that are not explicitly endorsed by the writings of dead wise men. Perhaps this approach is repellant to the fundamentalists. Oh well. Get over it.

---

by: brooke @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 15:50:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cheap!

You see bodhisattva action as people using Buddhism to "pat themselves on the back." My, such cheap criticism.

Come, come. The dirty hippies of occupy wall street aren't turning to religious traditions for inspiration and sustenance. Au contraire! They just want an attaboy from the Buddha.

It's exactly like Gandhi "using" the Bhagavad Gita to feed his ego, and teaching civil disobedience because he craved Thoreau's approval.

It's exactly like American abolitionists "using" the bible to feel righteous, as if God is somehow opposed to human slavery. (He's not!)

It's really disgusting how all these malcontents act as if religion has something to do with social justice. ;-)

"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 Oct 24, 2011 at 18:01:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be clear

I'm not insisting that I am correct or that anyone adopt any particular interpretation or approach. I'm sorry that you took it that way. I tried to make it clear that I did not want to do that. All I was doing was to address an idea you gave voice to in your original post. I thought that is what is desired.

In my original post, I was responding to your suggestion that zuiho bini is a double edged sword.  You wrote:

"On one hand, it can be used to minimize objections to cultural norms that perpetuate inequality. On the other hand, it's a precept for adapting liberative teachings to cultural norms in an effort to make the teachings universal, regardless of culture."

I don't read anything in Nichiren's counsel addressed to the problem of inequality. All he is saying is that, "this is the norm, you might do well to observe it." To analyze this counsel as condoning inequality is a critique informed by modern sensibilities.  One would have to read that problem into this counsel, because I don't think you can really say its there.

On your second point, I am not sure that teachings are adapted so much as religious practice is adapted. This may seem like I'm nit-picking, but I think there is a big difference.

I then tried to suggest, inartfully, that there is something else going on in the application of zuiho bini than what you are suggesting. My long winded posts were an attempt to explain this distinction.

I then raised an issue with the idea of "harmonizing" which I think is the wrong nuance in the context of Lotus Buddhist thought.  If its not too late, I would suggest "recontextualizing" is a better way to put it.  The process is different, I think.

In any event, it is regrettable that I came across as insisting that you, or anyone, MUST adopt some view or another. That is not what I was trying to do at all.

---

by: Queequeg @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 18:26:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Carl Sagan on ZB

Excellent discussion!

I've always looked at the concept of ZB as meaning that if you have to adapt yourself to the world view in a manner outside of your own culture by adopting a behavior which  "indicates" your world view, then something is wrong with the world view. Or something is wrong with your view of the world view. Extreme examples are shaving your head, wearing robes, or even leaving society. But it could also be subtle like burning incense.    

"Why don't the details of the religious belief cross over the cultural barriers? It is hard to explain unless the details are entirely determined by the local culture and have nothing to do with something that is externally valid"
Carl Sagan

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 17:36:33 PM UTC

Agree and disagree

There's that line of research that suggests, if you want to be happy, smile.  Somehow, going through the physical experience of smiling has an effect on emotional state.  Who knows why that connection is there - something hardwired between that part of the brain and the facial muscles, or maybe conditioning so that when those facial muscles are engaged in a smile the brain just automatically associates being happy with it...

To an extent, there might arguably be something to full body prostrations and devotional thinking that leads to the Buddha's delight.  Maybe shaving one's head, putting on robes, etc. as well.  One thing that as Nichirenists we might be missing is that shaving your head and putting on robes is just part of entering the sangha which actually is about pursuing enlightenment as a full time occupation - its the uniform you have to put on to join the monastery and get the free lunch, access to the teachers, etc.

To me, ZB is a question about what is and what is not essential. What can you dispense with and what do you have to keep?  Nichiren is pretty clear about making clear what he thinks is essential and what he thinks is supplemental. Sitting on folded legs and burning incense is not essential as far as I can gather.  What is? My sense is the only thing he insists on is faith the the LS.  Literally, NMRK.

Its all stuff we can take under advisement or not.  For some reason I feel the need to keep adding that caveat.

---

by: Queequeg @ Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 18:52:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what is and what is not essential

Sitting on folded legs and burning incense is not essential as far as I can gather.  What is? My sense is the only thing he insists on is faith the the LS.  Literally, NMRK.

Can you give me a definition of faith in context with your statement?

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 14:15:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

faith

Well, to be clear, this is my understanding of what Nichiren means by faith.

I think the key is to look at the Lotus Sutra for the meaning.  There is that term - "shinge" in Japanese, adhimukti in sanskrit.  It is the title of the 4th chapter of the LS although the term does not appear in the chapter itself.  The chapter relates a parable of the estranged son told by Maudgalyayana. In case people are not familiar with the parable - son of a wealthy man goes and gets lost in life, so much so that he no longer recognizes his father when he sees him.  The father, though, recognizes him and sends his servants to bring the son home. The son, thinking he is being arrested, freaks out and begs to be released, and the father seeing his son get upset, frees him. Next the father sends a servant to offer the son a job scrubbing toilets and what not, and the son accepts. The father puts on rags and scrubs toilets next to the son. Little by little, the father gives the boy more and more responsibility until he is managing the entire estate. At that time, the father announces to everyone that he is the man's father. Maudgalyayana says that he feels like the son after the Buddha gave Shariputra a prophecy of enlightenment. He thought he was just going to attain arhatship and then dissipate into parinirvana (scrubbing toilets) but now he knows that he will attain Buddhahood (inherit the estate) and so he is overjoyed.

Shinge then comes up again in the 16th and 17th chapters.  The Buddha opens up the 16th chapter saying, "You must have adhimukti toward the truthful words of the Tathagata" The Buddha then explains his life span.  In the 17th Chapter, the Buddha explains the benefits of having adhimukti toward the teaching on the Buddha's life span.

Nichiren explains what he means by faith in a number of writings, but probably in most detail in "4 Stages of Faith and 5 Stages of Practice".  In that writing, he focuses on chapter 17 and reasons that "shin" (faith) is all that is required to attain to the benefits of the Lotus Sutra. There is some question if Nichiren taught faith was all that is necessary or if one should then pursue the further teachings in the chapter.  In any event, he seems to have defined faith in the Lotus Sutra (the Buddha's life span) as the key to attaining enlightenment.

To understand the implications of Buddha's life span, or at least what Nichiren took from it, I think you then have to look at Tientai's explanations of ichinen sanzen and all that.

Faith=adhimukti.  But to understand faith in Nichiren's context, you have to understand the object of faith.  Faith by itself is undefined, I think.

---

by: Queequeg @ Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 15:14:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Self Defeating Faith

Thanks Queequeg.
I always ask because "faith" is a word that has variable meanings to people especially in context.

Most of the people I know who practice Buddhism weren't raised Buddhist and approach "faith" with the same mindset as with whatever worldview there were raised with or exposed to in their various cultures. Actually most of the Buddhist I know who were raised Buddhist approach "faith" the same way as a Christian, Muslim, or a Jew does.

Without getting into too many definitions, the one that is mostly associated with religion is:

a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Of course there no single external deity in Buddhism, not denying that certain sects pray to certain Buddhas like a deity.

Then there is this definition of faith:

complete trust or confidence in someone or something

This is more akin to my personal interpretation of the 4th chapter of the Lotus Sutra because the story is all about trust and the value gained through a relationship based on humanism, which is a tangible quality rather than a spiritual belief.

I have not always thought this way, but I now think that faith is the wrong word. Because once you have effectual evidence "faith" becomes irrelevant. To "deepen your faith in the Lotus Sutra" is self defeating and leads to stagnation.  

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 18:07:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Faith?

I've come to a similar conclusion that "faith" is probably the wrong word for what the Lotus Sutra is referring to.  That's how its been translated, and I can't think of a better word, so by default, I use it.

I want to take up your comment that faith in the context of the 4th chapter is humanistic. I agree there is some humanistic aspect to the parable of the wealthy man and his estranged son. The father builds up trust with the son so that when the father finally identifies his son, his son can accept it. This is in contrast to the son's reaction when he was first recognized by the wealthy man - he freaked out and wouldn't even try to listen.

Faith is a quality of mind, or disposition, but to have full meaning, it has to have an object - something to have faith in. In the parable, the son is able at long last to have faith that the wealthy man is his father. In the chapter, Maudgalyayana is expressing through the parable how he feels on learning that Shariputra would attain Buddhahood.

The means of building the trust is humanistic, but the object of faith is a spiritual idea - would you consider the prophecy that Sariputra will become a Buddha, a spiritual idea?  How about the life span of the tathagata?

That parable is operating within a context involving this extraordinary  being - this Buddha.  At this point in the Sutra everyone still thinks he attained enlightenment in this life under the Bodhi tree near Gaya.  When adhimukti comes up again in this story, he is about to reveal his real identity as this eternal being who appears in this world at whim to teach beings about the true nature of reality. There is something deistic about the Buddha in this Sutra. This would be a lengthy and interesting topic to examine.  I think Chih-i is able to avoid the tendency toward theism because the Buddha is equated with the True Aspect of Reality in a particular way. Another conversation.

I'm home sick today, so I have the luxury of being around my books. I was looking at some notes in Poussin's translation of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam. Adhimukti is explained in the context of meditative practice as referring to the first instance where the mind turns to an object, recognizing it as an object, without yet making any judgment as to what it is. The notes to the text suggest "approbation", but reading the context in which adhimukti comes up, I think its an even more subtle concept. Maybe its that initial moment where distinctions are recognized. Simultaneously with adhimukti occurs determination - ie. one resolves that there is an object.

This sheds a little light maybe. I get the sense that adhimukti in the tathagata's life span means to take it as true even though one is unable to confirm it, and from there, live as though it is a truth as tangible as gravity. This would tend to jive with comments along the lines that faith is the gateway to enlightenment - in order to pursue understanding of this infinite life, one must first recognize that there is infinite life.

---

by: Queequeg @ Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 20:08:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Recognition

In the parable, the son is able at long last to have faith that the wealthy man is his father.

Actually I disagree. If you want to call it "faith" okay, but what he attains is self confidence or trust in himself through the efforts of his father that he can do the job which he inherits. But he is already doing the job regardless of whether is understands that the man is his father or not.  

This is an apt point:

faith is the gateway to enlightenment - in order to pursue understanding of this infinite life, one must first recognize that there is infinite life.

So what's it like for you? Did your faith give you the transcendental powers described? As a prophet, what do you need faith for now? Sorry if I sound glib, but if NMRK is the shortest way to enlightenment, I still haven't met anyone who has attained it as described. My point is, if you have, then you don't need faith any longer. But as a Bodhisattva of the earth, you never will attain it because you've put it off to "save" everyone else so all you are left with is the non-essential expedient and spiritual catch all of "faith" and you run around believing the same bullshit as every other world view that makes you believe that your existence will extend. But then again, I question that the Buddha actually said anything that that is attributed to him since it was half a millennium between the time he said something, was filtered through culture, people's laminations, and finally edited into a scripture.

I'm sorry if I come off cynical, but quoting the Lotus Sutra is not proof that anything it professes is valid.  

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 08:20:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS

I'm sorry if I come off cynical, but quoting the Lotus Sutra is not proof that anything it professes is valid.  

And if you do, in the face of proof, faith because irrelevant.  

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 08:34:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

grind the world into dust

I think that the problem with Proof in the context of the Lotus Sutra is that its actually impossible to "know" how long the Buddha's life span is.  All that grinding universes into dust, distributing dust and again grinding universes into dust. There is only "faith". Its probably no coincidence that all those mathematicians who work with infinities seem loopy.

---

by: Queequeg @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 15:24:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Continuing...

I agree with your take on the parable - the son is raised up to have the self confidence to accept his legacy. But there is more to the story.  The parable needs to be read in the context of the text and it refers to the prophecy of enlightenment for Shariputra in the 3rd chapter. Developing the confidence is one part - the irony is the son was getting paid wages out of his own bank account to begin with - the way this has been read is that the meager achievements of the sravaka is what a person achieves as a matter of course by entering the Buddha path.

I make no claim that recognizing infinite life will bring you to enlightenment. The subject we are talking about is Nichiren Buddhism, and this is how he seems to have taken it. We can speculate about what does and does not lead to enlightenment, if there even is something called enlightenment, but that is a slightly different discussion. I'm not quoting from the sutras and commentaries to convince you, me or anyone of their truth. What I am pointing out is there is a very specific set of ideas and logic that underlies chanting NMRK as a practice. Some of it, in my opinion, is pretty remarkable.

In any event, the infinite life the texts seem to be talking about seems to me something other than infinite life in the way Jesus worshipers and mormons take it.  My sense is that in the Lotus, they have pushed past the limits of linear logic - infinite life seems to refer to birthlessness, deathlessness, etc. ideas that are taken up in earlier Buddhist literature like Prajna literature.  In the context of the East Asian Lotus School, infinite life seems to be reinterpreted through ichinen sanzen.

Does chanting get you a new car, a perfect lover and family, human revolution at your job? Meh. Maybe. I'm skeptical of their explanations for how it happened. But that's a different story. Does it open up weird avenues for analyzing your existence? So far, that's what I've found. Do these means of analyzing existence have effects on your life? So far, yes, for me.

If I may suggest, I think you're too caught up on my use of the word "faith".  I tried to address that.  I use it out of a (bad) habit, for lack of a better term at this time.  I was trying to qualify the term  with reference to what adhimukti seems to mean in sanskritic contexts - its that subtle movement of the mind on first recognizing an object.

I don't mind your cynicism, as I hope you don't mind my approach to the subjects. I probably speak with more certainty than I ought to. Its the way I work. I generally go all in on whatever task or idea is immediately before me until I find its flawed. Then I find something else and go all in with that. To put this into a practical illustration, before getting married, this tendency played out as being a serial monogamist. I could never get the hang of just playing the field and being loose.

Regarding what the Buddha said and didn't say, does it really matter if the Buddha actually said any of this stuff? I threw out that notion a long time ago and approach Buddhism as systems of thought - metaphysical conversations based on some shared assumptions about there having been a Buddha - a person who had overcome all of the limitations of this life, and some other related thoughts about the substantiality of dharmas, psychology, moderation, etc. I don't care that all 80,000 texts were not expounded in a single lifetime by a single person. The observations people in the Buddhist movements have made over the millenia are interesting in their own right and help me along in trying to figure out what the heck is actually going on. The mythical language operates on a bunch of levels. Put it this way - is science fiction, or all fiction for that matter, precluded from revealing truths because its fiction? That's the same way I look at critiques of Buddhist texts on the grounds the Buddha didn't say them. OK. Now that we have that hang up out of the way, can we talk about the ideas? If you want.

---

by: Queequeg @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 15:17:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ideas

OK. Now that we have that hang up out of the way, can we talk about the ideas?

Ha ha ha, I thought we were!

Well, how about the basic concept of karma and all it's permeations, an idea that has been around long before the Buddha re-invented its' nature. Do you believe in a continuance of life in which you will have a consciousness and qualities attributed to past existences?  

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 16:09:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

:D

We are indeed.

I don't know that I believe in transmigration. Its something I work with as a tool to examine life. There are moral implications to it that I think are useful. I might even tell someone its true if they are seeking something to find hope in.

A number of years ago I visited Dharamsala where the Tibetan exile community is centered. I became friendly with a monk who was working on a PhD at Oxford or Cambridge - one of those Anglo bastions of learning. I asked him point blank what proof there was for transmigration. At first he tried to deflect, saying it wasn't important. I pressed him saying this was very important for me because I am Buddhist. He changed his tack and started telling me about advanced meditators who have developed the ability to recall their past existences. I kept pressing him on that and the conversation kind of petered out. I suspect that is an article of faith to make their particular interpretation of Buddhism work. As best I can read Vasubandhu and other Yogacara teachers who seem pretty important in Himalayan Buddhism - this transmigration is to a large extent a critical idea. That manas and alaya vijnanas.

I don't think the same impetus is there in East Asian Lotus Buddhism. Without going into it too much, there might be a reason Chih-i chose a nine consciousness scheme crowned by the amala-vijnana.

In any event, Chih-i claimed that his lineage could be traced through his teacher, Nanyueh, and on back to Nagarjuna. In the Mulamadhyamikakarika, Nagarjuna gets into this sunyata of sunyata that when you follow its logic leaves you at this point at which no idea (dharma) can be seized on. In my experience, working it through has left me at a fully conscious state, but cut off from forming any ideas.  Frankly, I felt stupefied.

Chih-i does an interesting thing with the idea by opening a means of reversing the analysis of sunyata back into dharmas. This possibility is there in Nagarjuna's writing but its just as this appeal to an ordinary conventionality for expedient purposes - the resort to conventions to communicate with ignorant beings to reveal the ultimate truth of sunyata. Chih-i suggests instead that the provisional is inseparable from the Ultimate in a way that affirms dharmas - he does away with the dichotomy between absolute and conventional in a different way than Nagarjuna. For Nagarjuna, the non-dual is sunyata of sunyata. For Chih-i, the non-dual is an integration of sunyata of sunyata with the conventional into a seemless One. One of the best descriptions I've read about this integration is the continuous surface of a mobius strip. Sunyata of Sunyata is found only in the conventional which reveals sunyata of sunyata, ad infinitum.

Another way Chih-i describes this continuous process is the life cycle of the Lotus plant - a plant grows up out of the mud, seeds and flowers, falls back into the mud giving rise to more Lotus plants. This process continues endlessly until the whole pond is filled with lotus flowers, each repeating this cycle, on and on. You see this in ideas about transmigration in Buddhist and non-Buddhist Indian thought - at the micro level on up to the macro level of the arising and perishing of whole universes. At a broader context, the arising and perishing of the universe reveals a scale of life greater than the universe. Same for people - the arising and perishing of individuals, when taken as a whole reveals a larger scale of life - a greater truth, which in turn is contextualized in an even greater truth, ad infinitum on up to unimaginably huge scales. What I take from transmigration is the beginningless and endless nature of all this.

When I sit and turn analysis of dharmas into myself - I find, as the Buddha taught, there is no Me. What I think is me is this mistaken apprehension by this sack of water and nerves that this sack of water and nerves is the abode of a me that is substantial. At the same time, this supposition of "Me" brings a complete order to the universe which includes knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, as well as the implication of its emptiness. This Me is the culmination of all time into this particular moment of experience, and is the point of departure for all that will come. The thing is, every single dharma is exactly the same. You are the culmination of all time, the point of departure for all that will come. In the present, you are the organizing principle for the entire universe.

That's all fun stuff to think about. Do I take any particular idea as a truth to believe, like transmigration? I'm not concerned with that as a truth. What I am concerned about is this infinite recontextualization and the practical implications it has for this adventure being experienced by this bag of water.

And you?  I take it you don't believe in transmigration. OK. Lets move on because there's other stuff, way more interesting to get lost in.

---

by: Queequeg @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 19:07:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Get Lost

Go ahead, what's more interesting?

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 21:11:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

:P

Well, I suppose I should qualify that. There's stuff that's more interesting to me than arguing over whether we transmigrate over eons...

What is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything?

You first.

(I have a knock knock joke. You start it.)

---

by: Queequeg @ Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 21:34:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Biting...

You want ME to say Knock Knock or who's there?

A vaudeville act which consisted of girl siamese twins who danced and juggled were performing and one of the girls caught the eye of the MC warm up guy. They had a one night stand which consisted of one sister banging the MC and the other reading the paper. Years later, the sisters were performing their act, and the one who had the affair saw the MC standing in the wings. She nudged her sister and they danced and juggled their way over to him and she says: "You probably don't remember me but..."

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 21:14:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On topic?

You guys know that this board is open to the public and can be read by anyone, right?

And you know this board is about Buddhism, right?

Just checking.

---

by: Nine Lives @ Sat Oct 29, 2011 at 18:38:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Treasure Tower

Okay, sorry.
(The twins are Taho and Shakyamuni, the closed tower of the provisional teaching and the open tower of the essential teaching and the MC is Bodhisattva Jogyo.)  

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 08:41:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Siamese Twins.

I thought for a second it was going some "Aristocrats" direction.

The knock knock joke doesn't quite work in this media. I say, "I have a knock knock joke, you start." You're supposed to say "knock knock", I say "who's there?" and you say... has to be rattled off quick. Old joke.

Brook Ziporyn in talking about the message of the Lotus Sutra compares it to the structure of a joke - set-up and punchline.  

The set-up is the provisional teaching. In the parable about the prodigal son, the son being scared of his father and being lured into the house only on the promise of a job scrubbing toilets is the set-up. The punchline is the son was getting paid out of his own bank account the whole time he's scrubbing toilets. In terms of the whole sutra, the set-up is everyone thinking Shakyamuni attained enlightenment for the first time under the Bo tree, and the punchline is, no, he's been doing this for eternity.

The way Ziporyn explains it, there is usually nothing particularly funny about the set-up.  The joke works best if there is nothing humorous about it. The punch-line though casts the set-up in a different light by revealing some additional fact or context within which the set-up is revealed to be funny. Now you look at the set-up, which was at first serious, and now see it as humorous with the context of the punch-line. Nothing has changed about the set-up except that further details were revealed.

Ziporyn suggests that this is the message of the Lotus Sutra - that reality is this infinite set-up and punch=line.  As each moment passes, more of reality is revealed putting everything that came before into a new light that reveals something more about what was always already there. In the mythological language describing the ultimate goal - The Buddha is the ultimate punch-line putting everything into a context that reveals all of it to be the perpetual expression of enlightenment. At the same time, plugging this into the ten worlds, a hungry ghost is the punch-line that reveals the world is permeated by unquenchable desire, and a hell-dweller reveals everything to be the source of immense suffering.  Remarkably, all of these punch-lines mutually interact with the others without changing anything - just casting the set-up in different lights according to different punch-lines.

He spends 200 pages describing how this works, so excuse me if this description seems incomplete.

---

by: Queequeg @ Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 15:08:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so excuuuuuse meeeee!

I wouldn't be to hard on yourself if you think it's your fault that what you're trying to relate sounds "incomplete". Actually, it sounds boring and analyzing comic structure is, in my personal experience, a losing proposition regardless of the reasoning.

Jokes nobody but me and the writers laugh at:

Guy walks into a bar with a big red STOP sign for a head. Bar tender asks "What happened to you?" Guy says,"I found a bottle with a genie in it and it gave me three wishes. First wish, wealth. That turned out great. Second wish, health, and that turned out great too. Now this is where I think I screwed up: I wished for a big red STOP sign head."

Horse walks into a bar. Bar tender says, "Why the long face?"
Horse says, "I got cancer."

Saul is working in his store when he hears the booming voice of God: "Saul, sell your business." He ignores it. It goes on for days. "Saul, sell your business for $3 million." After weeks of this, he relents, sells his store. God says 'Saul, go to Las Vegas." He asks why. "Saul, take the $3 million to Las Vegas." He obeys, goes to a casino. God says, "Saul , go to the blackjack table and put it down all on one hand." He hesitates but knows he must. He's dealt an 18. The dealer has a six showing. "Saul, take a card." What? The dealer has - "Take a card!" He tells the dealer to hit him. Saul gets an ace. Nineteen. He breathes easy. "Saul, take another card." What? "TAKE ANOTHER CARD!" He asks for another card. It's another ace. He has twenty. "Saul, take another card," the voice commands. I have twenty! Saul shouts. "TAKE ANOTHER CARD!!" booms God. Hit me,Saul says. He gets another ace. Twenty one. God says: "un-fucking-believable!"

Don't let being alive ruin your day.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 19:33:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks!

more for the repertoire.  

i was hanging at my local dive with some friends and regulars a while back and got out 10 straight jokes that got nothing but groans.  bartender finally bribed me to stop with a double makers.  

if I had been drinking coffee this morning, that last one would have had it ejected out my nose.

---

by: Queequeg @ Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 17:08:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tangential

What do kitchen appliances have to do with enlightenment?

---

by: Bodhisattva Troll King @ Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:49:34 AM UTC

I'll do it for the lulz...

Dunno.  What?

---

by: Queequeg @ Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 17:10:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

180 degrees?

What do kitchen appliances have to do with enlightenment?

Enlightenment means you don't need to read the manual?

"A relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism,"

"Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality."

---

by: ten2one @ Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 21:23:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it has only one colour?

Zuiho Bini - defined as: loving the Formalities and failing to address and live with Realities!

Also known as Dogma Over Dharma.

Many wonder at Nichiren retiring to a Mountain Forest and ending up at Minabu.

Some have looked for this in many sutras and not been able to find it. That is because it as Confucian ideal and nothing to do with Buddhism. Odd how Nichiren used a Confucian ideal to make it clear to many in power that he had remonstrated three times and that they (the elites) were deaf and not worth talking to any more.

Adapting the local customs and practices to the service of Buddhism.

Nichiren was an expert communicator in so many ways and on so many levels. Odd how so many fail to grasp that and keep reducing the life of Nichiren to Sound-bite Buddhism - a bit like praising the rainbow and then demanding it has only one colour!

Zuiho Bini is a two way street! Not only does it address the adaptation of the precepts to local custom and practice - It also addresses adaptation of local custom and practice to the precepts.

They are not the same thing!

Nichiren did both!

Using the gosho quote to address Zuiho Bini is a poor example of Zuiho Bini.

Zuiho Bini was not some esoteric concept - it is built into the Bini - or as they are better known the Viyana.

The primary focus of the Gosho was refutation of Nembutsu. It would appear that the issue of Zuiho Bini was a minor adjunct aimed at equipping the recipient and her husband with suitable material to refute political and religious machinations that were occurring in Kamakura at that time - affecting both them and Nichiren.

There is always reduced value in snipping a long and complex document to quotations in the hope that it will simplify comprehension of the whole.  


"A relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism,"

"Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality."

---

by: ten2one @ Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 16:42:27 PM UTC

Double edge

Hi ten2one. You wrote:

Zuiho Bini is a two way street! Not only does it address the adaptation of the precepts to local custom and practice - It also addresses adaptation of local custom and practice to the precepts.

They are not the same thing!

Nichiren did both!

I believe that you have succinctly summarized the point I'm trying to make.

My further point is that (in the case of medieval Japan and still today) both the local custom and Buddhist precepts involve really messed up notions about women and their so-called impurities and inferiority. I have yet to see anyone explain away the subjugation and second-class status of women in Buddhist doctrine. It's real. It is operative in Buddhist communities today. Let's not pretend otherwise.

The question is: What to do about it?

There is always reduced value in snipping a long and complex document to quotations in the hope that it will simplify comprehension of the whole.

I agree. However, my point was not to analyze the entire body of Nichiren's work, or even this one entire gosho. My point is to look at the concept of zuiho bini as it is understood in Nichiren Buddhism. Thanks for contributing to the effort.

---

by: brooke @ Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 17:12:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Double edge - Dogma In The Wind

My further point is that (in the case of medieval Japan and still today) both the local custom and Buddhist precepts involve really messed up notions about women and their so-called impurities and inferiority. I have yet to see anyone explain away the subjugation and second-class status of women in Buddhist doctrine. It's real. It is operative in Buddhist communities today. Let's not pretend otherwise.

The question is: What to do about it?

Quote the only example of enlightenment in one's present from given in all sutras.

That Dragon King's Daughter is one hell of a good example - and if a female half lizard animal type can do it, there is hope for everyone.

As for Buddhist communities - Dust In The Wind! .... all they are is Dust In The Wind ... All they do Crumbles to the ground, though they refuse to see. Impermanence is like that!

Or should that be Dogma In the Wind?

I have seen so much wind generated by Dogma.

If you really want to get the point across point out how one Bodhisattva underwent a sex change - and Shakyamuni told him it was not an issue.

Have a look at the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra - and what the goddess does to the hapless Sariputra!

In fact Sariputra went through two sex changes in rapid succession - which from a Buddhist Dogma point of view, in the lesser teachings, is even worse.

There is neither male or female - as the Buddha taught!

So which doctrines are being followed by which dogmas?

Nichiren liked the Vimalakirti Sutra and quoted it often.

One wonders why?

The Sutra also addresses enlightenment by polluted people suffering illness and disability - and Nichiren used that to refute Medieval Japanese Buddhist Dogma as to the causes of illness and how to treat them.

One sutra - two dogmas muzzled! Cheep at half the price.

The goddesses views and comments on the "Attainment" of enlightenment are also VERY worthy of study.

Such a pity that the Sutra is not so widely studied or even known about.

Nichiren studied it - so one has to wonder why so many Nichiren Buddhists have not!  

"A relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism,"

"Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality."

---

by: ten2one @ Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 21:06:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sandwiches

Ultimately they have nothing to do with enlightenment. Or is the act of making them not just a Bodhisattva practice but enlightenment itself? Hmmm.

---

by: Bodhisattva Troll King @ Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 05:31:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Meatball Marinara enlighteneing?

I have never considered enlightenment as a sandwich, or that making one could be a Bodhisttva practice.

Do differences in Dharma and Dogma come from  the types of bread or the brands of mayo?

More to the point - when do you get sides and extras?

"A relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism,"

"Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality."

---

by: ten2one @ Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 18:19:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I meant "Sammiches."

Even Shariputra knew the joy of making sammiches. The only way to find out is to get to the kitchen and stay there.

---

by: Bodhisattva Troll King @ Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 21:17:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are coupons allowed?

Even Shariputra knew the joy of making sammiches.

Do you have a Sutra Reference for that one?

I just want to check, if I can use a coupon.  

"A relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism,"

"Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality."

---

by: ten2one @ Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 21:52:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Enough

Somebody please post a new diary on a new topic.

---

by: Nine Lives @ Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 22:46:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All right all ready!

Somebody please post a new diary on a new topic.

It has been done!

... but I still want to know more about the enlightenment of lunch meat!

"A relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism,"

"Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality."

---

by: ten2one @ Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 00:37:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

*Hand to face technique*

That's a negative.

Why can't you make sandwiches right?

---

by: Bodhisattva Troll King @ Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 23:57:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]