BuddhaJones
HOME | ABOUT | MOBILE | RSS | WHAT IS NICHIREN BUDDHISM?

Quit Buddhism?

by: Queequeg

Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 15:22:16 PM PST


( - promoted by Nine Lives)

I have reservations about the author's approach and assumptions, but thought it was provoking and might stimulate some interesting conversation here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Queequeg :: Quit Buddhism?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Quit Buddhism? | 47 comments
Strawman
QQ, I couldn't make it all the way through the article because he's rejecting interpretations of Buddhism that one can reject without rejecting the entirety of Buddhism. This, for example:

What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible-like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.

Maybe some Buddhists mistakenly believe that enlightenment -- as if there's universal agreement on the meaning of the term enlightenment! -- equals moral infallibility...but not all.

It's hard to argue with a strawman Buddhist.

But then, as we've seen in recent discussions here, it's hard to define exactly what Nichiren Buddhists believe, let alone all Buddhists.

Enlightenment Of Plants?
It's hard to argue with a strawman Buddhist.

But, can straw be enlightened?  

"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."

[ Parent ]
It is a tough article to get through
Here's a long winded comment that might also be hard to get through.

Here's the tl;dr synopsis: Too bad the evolving independent Nichiren community has not been able to articulate our values more effectively and too bad the author did not venture outside of Tricycle Buddhism to find the interesting and promising Buddhist conversations going on in the independent Nichiren communities.

I linked to the article because I've read similar criticisms on Nichiren boards. However, unlike this author, despite these sorts of criticisms, people seemed to continue practicing. This suggests to me that even when people have deep reservations about supposedly important Buddhist ideas, we find something practical and useful in our practice that overrides these theoretical concerns.

As I was reading, I had this urge to tell the author, "keep pushing through, keep practicing; there's more than you're allowing here." Maybe someone should tell him about the 3 obstacles and 4 devils to gird his confidence. Alas, I get the sense his true creed is Scientific Secularism, and when he found some Buddhist ideas did not measure up to his more deeply held beliefs, he felt he had no choice but to turn away. For Nichiren, this sort of approach to Buddhadharma was perhaps his foremost peeve. Was Nichiren right? wrong?

This is a bit of a sidetrack comment, but I think the Nichiren Buddhists I've encountered online - generally former Gakkers - many of whom I've been interacting with since the mid-late 90s on various boards, have evolved a fairly sophisticated conversation. I think we can take a moment to pat ourselves on our backs for this accomplishment. We've generally dealt with a lot of the superstitious ideas and come to a pretty practical consensus about practice. In many ways, I think we've evolved a maturity that maybe you don't find in a other Buddhist communities.

Maybe some of the reasons we've been able to evolve is that we generally share a background in the extremely practical, albeit flawed, approach of Soka Gakkai doctrine. Our practice is also framed by the aggressive practice of shakubuku which has, for better and worse, freed us from the politically correct constraints of Buddhist traditions that privilege shoju approaches. Freed from having to restrain ourselves, we shakubuku each other mercilessly and in the process cause each other and ourselves to reflect deeply on our beliefs and practices. We used to be famous on the internets for being an angry community that "flamed" each other and looked really ugly - its still pretty ugly in some of the backwaters like ARBN the home of the Nichiren Flame Wars - but the thing about fire is that it also purifies.

Another factor may be that with independence, we have no Asian overlords to dictate what the Dharma is and is not. We have freedom of thought and inquiry in our community to a remarkable degree. Sometimes we fail, sometimes we succeed, and I count the conversation in places like Buddha Jones as a success.  It was hard establishing an independent viewpoint, but thanks to the efforts of pioneers who have been arguing out the ideas for the last 15+years, I feel like there is an independent sangha, albeit one limited to electronic impulses sent over phone lines - an emerging American (apologies to Buds in other places) Buddhism.

Indeed, look at us in recent discussions here - we can't agree on much except that we keep on practicing (I think), keep challenging each other. Even when we feel our disagreements divide us, I see even the most harshly felt divisions as part and parcel of this broader community we have. This in itself is a remarkable accomplishment and I think is proof that our community has developed to an extraordinary degree.

I think the independent approach to Nichiren Buddhism will continue to develop and a general creed will emerge. I am confident that we have an extraordinary legacy in Lotus Buddhism that gives us the theoretical and practical foundation to build a compelling Buddhist community on, that will develop the language to communicate these profound ideas in our contemporary world, and help people to find happiness.

Too bad the author of the article has apparently only swam in the waters of the more mainstream Buddhist traditions. Too bad we have not nailed down the cohesive and inclusive message that I think the independent Nichiren community is starting to articulate more effectively.  

[ Parent ]
Gakkers
My first exposure to Nichiren Buddhism was through Woody Hochschwender's books and other material related to SGI, including D.I.'s "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life and Death." Hochswender's books, in particular, struck me with their common-sense approach to Buddhist practice and ideology. Ryuei's many essays strike me in the same way: nothing is esoteric, all terms are explained in language easy to understand. I found this lack of obscurantism refreshing. So much of Buddhist literature seems to be written by people who want to impress me with exotic terms and concepts that the Nichiren approach was like a breath of fresh air: it was refreshing, for example, to read a description of enlightenment grounded in the experience of everyday life.

I've read a fair amount about Buddhism out of interest and only Thich Nhat Hahn's books approach this level of intelligibility.

[ Parent ]
I'd attribute the practical approach
to Nichiren. The argument could be made that the sole intent of his teaching was to make Buddhahood accessible to all people, no matter their capacity, learning or background. It might be difficult to crack some of Nichiren's more theoretical writing (there is a ton of that stuff - after all, he was proposing a revolutionary idea that still had to be justified in light of Buddhist theory), but there are many letters that even a person with limited background in Buddhist thought could understand the gist of his teaching and see the concern he had to open the door to profound Buddhist practice to people of all capacities.

At the same time, if you want to examine the teaching further, it is also extremely profound - in my experience, it is as complicated and difficult to penetrate as anything else I've come across. The more I read the Lotus Sutra, the more I realize it exhibits a fluency in some of the most complicated Buddhist doctrine. It references ideas in passing that are expounded in not just one or two sutras, but the conclusions of whole sections of the canon, touching on them in passing and utilizing them as small bricks in the construction of bigger ideas.

[ Parent ]
Lengthy responses
I prefer the dental care analogy regarding the state of enlightenment. You never get to a state where you no longer need to clean your teeth. You brush daily, I hope. You floss daily, I hope. You go to the dentist. It's not as if you attain some special power by doing these things. But you do get to enjoy the basic goodness (to borrow from Trungpa) of having clean, healthy teeth -- and this, I believe, brightens one's entire outlook on life.

Queequeg, the article you linked to concludes:

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental.

The author has made up his mind that science and religion are fundamentally at odds. I feel that this conclusion is half-baked and a misrepresentation of both religion and science. I agree that it's an interesting article because it mirrors arguments that I, too, have heard from people trying to practice Buddhism.

I just read this over on Barbara's blog
http://buddhism.about.com/b/20...

Another aspect of deep honesty is remaining open to truth. So often we "make up our minds" about the way things are, and then we are closed. Certitude is a dead end. Always leave room for new understanding, even if you like your current understanding. Especially if you like your current understanding. Be particularly mistrustful of "facts" that fit too neatly into your worldview. Stay open to the realization that your worldview is an illusion, even if it doesn't seem to be an illusion.

Excellent advice, I think. It also serves a response to your question about "openness", Queequeg, in a previous thread.

You wrote
http://www.buddhajones.com/sho...

Whatever path someone takes, its going to lead them to enlightenment, so really, why not let the practice be whatever? Why limit it to chanting daimoku, let alone a particular way to chant daimoku. Even a completely intolerant fundamentalism? Even a wholly scholastic intellectualization of the Buddha? Is Buddha any more or less real because someone kills him or because someone fetishizes him?

Is one still a Nichrien Buddhist at these limits of practice set out by Never Disparaging? Does that question even make sense or have any significance anymore?

To borrow from Barbara, I would answer, first: "Always leave room for new understanding, even if you like your current understanding. Especially if you like your current understanding."

Secondly, I should say that I am a "whateverist." I do believe that there are many paths to enlightenment, and I am not the judge of them. I believe enlightenment is available to all beings in all cultures and belief systems -- even plants and rocks, ten2one -- and all who are deluded, through manifold paths. In other words, "Whatever."

Nonetheless, the question at hand focused on "What does it mean to be a Nichiren Buddhist?" not "what does it mean to be a whateverist."

I say again that Nichiren Buddhists are those who simply chant daimoku with the spirit or attitude of openness.

Auntie, we're not far apart, if at all...
I say again that Nichiren Buddhists are those who simply chant daimoku with the spirit or attitude of openness.

I think I was more picking on your choice of words than the sentiment behind them. 1021 points out the difficulty that attend this convention of language, and I agree for the most part, but I also proceed with the approach that conventional expressions of enlightenment can be crafted with infinitely increasing precision pursuant to the rules of the conventions.

At the same time, they are also perfect expressions of the Buddhadharma - perhaps not from one particular vantage point or another, but there is some vantage point from which they are realized to be perfect expressions of enlightenment at all times. This is probably further than what you describe as whateverist, but its actually in the Lotus Sutra. One of the reformers of Tientai Buddhism in China actually suggested that all endeavors when carried out completely lead to enlightenment. His slogan, so to speak, was something along the lines that even a dung beetle is a Buddha as it rolls up little balls of shit and eats them.  

I'm sure you're familiar, in the Lotus there is the parable about the prodigal son - he so lacks a sense of self worth that he thinks he is only fit to shovel shit in the rich man's latrines. Unbeknownst to him, the rich man is his father and the wages he is paid for his work are coming out of his own inheritance. Its only after he is raised up to accept the revelation that he is the blood son of the rich man that he can look back and realize that his father was looking after him as a father all along, and that he was always acting as the dutiful son - even in not knowing he was the son. Nothing changed about the past, but seen from this new vantage point, this more inclusive perspective, he could see how it all seamlessly fit with his being the son.

Chih-i called that opening the provisional to reveal the true. Striving with an open mind like you counsel is the subjective approach to living this teaching. But then, so is having a closed mind - the person with the closed mind simply has not seen the error of their ways yet, but which will be revealed to them sooner or later precisely because of their experience of trying to keep a closed mind.

I'm paraphrasing, but I believe you alluded to everything being an expression of Dharma, and I would add even things that don't appear to accord with dharma are perfect expressions of dharma from the Buddha's vantage point. Even failures due to delusions are teaching the person about the True Dharma. It may take them one mistake or a billion of the same mistake, but sooner or later, they'll get the message.

Bob Thurman talks about this as the long view - that when we attain perfect enlightenment, we will look back on this moment of our lives, this thought moment/ichinen, this moment where we think we are hopelessly deluded (or maybe enlightened) and understand that we always were enlightened. I think Lotus Buddhism takes this linear view and collapses the time frame into the thought moment so that Buddhahood is opened here and now - we don't have to practice the paramitas for eons - all we have to do is open up to the Buddhadharma in this moment.

I think we've taken different paths to roughly the same conclusion?

[ Parent ]
Crazy town
But you see how this idea can be taken to crazy town, right? You see how people could use it to justify any and all behavior, right?

I think you're misreading the Bodhisattva Never Disparaging thing. He's not telling everyone, "Hey, it doesn't matter what you do, you'll definitely become a Buddha."

How do people respond when you pay them a compliment, when you praise them, when you flatter them, when you say they have a great future ahead? They think highly of you. They like you. They don't throw rocks at you.

So what was Never Disparaging saying to make people throw rocks at him?

My guess is that he said something more along the lines of, "Beating your child is an act of extreme wickedness that you will surely regret one day, and you really should stop doing it right now. Even so, I would never disparage you as a human being, for certainly you will attain Buddhahood."

I think Bodhisattva Never Disparaging is illustrating the difference between condemning a person's behavior and condemning a person. It's possible to have a criminal justice system that punishes and hopefully rehabilitates people from criminal behavior, but still maintains the basic humanity of the prisoners, for example.

In other words, I think it's a an oddly nihilistic reading of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging to assume that he's saying "Anything goes." If anything goes, then nothing matters. And if nothing matters, that's nihilism, and that's at odds with the entirety of Buddhism.

Dung beetles can't help it if they eat shit. They are incapable of knowing better. If a man is abusing a child, do you honestly believe he's incapable of knowing better? This goes back to the Penn State thread from last month.

What is the proper response from a modern-day would-be Bodhisattva Never Disparaging upon seeing a man abusing a child? "Carry on, my good man, for your despicable behavior will certainly lead you to Buddhahood!" Hellzno. Something tells me that a Bodhisattva would be concerned about rescuing the child from suffering and trying to awaken the man from his nightmarish cruelty.

This is why, when discussing what it means to be a Nichiren Buddhist, you can't leave out Bodhisattva action. Chanting is primary, sure. Attitude/faith is important, yeah. But also: Deeds matter.  

[ Parent ]
Not So Crazy
I have always heard it as thoughts, words and deeds.

Old Buddy Disparaged is reported to not have just told folks they would become a Bud. He's reported to have been teaching Buddhism.

So I agree, he will have said many things in context that people will have not been happy about.

Good advice is often harsh on the ears - or rather, bloody minded types hate it when someone shows the the error of their ways! ... and they hate it more if you're nice about it!  

"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."

[ Parent ]
Yep
Brooke, I agree with the gist of your argument. I don't, however, read Never Disparaging doing anything other than what the Sutra says he does. I think whoever said that he was doing more was filling in details that would make the story conform to their expectations of what the Sutra ought to say. I suggested doing things like this to include more positive messages for women in a recent post, but I think here it would obscure the point the authors of the sutra were trying to make.

First, I don't believe there has ever been a real live Bodhisattva Disparaging. My take is this was a story emphasizing people who vehemently deny our Buddhanature - I think the author of this article I originally linked to might be one, as would many insistent atheists out there. A lot of Buddhists who have fallen into a heavy emphasis of anatman/sunyata might also be very insistent that there is no tathagatagarbha. Ever visit an atheist or emptiness obsessed Buddhist chat rooms? they can be as angry and dogmatic as anyone. Just for an experiment, find one of these chat rooms and troll them saying "I would never disparage you because you have the tathagatagarbha and will attain buddhahood someday!" I am sure there are people who would laugh or ignore you, but I am sure it won't be that hard to come across someone who will shout you down for making such a suggestion, and if in person, they might even take a swing at you if you kept doing it.

I don't think the premise of the story is that far out from its context, without even adding any details to the story. Within the context of the Sutra, it makes total sense. At the heart of the sutra, the Buddha doesn't reveal ethical rules, or cause and effect, or anything like that, a fact that has led people to comment that the Lotus Sutra fails to deliver the Lotus Sutra. But actually, the Buddha reveals his eternal life span (ie. the tathagatagarbha). It follows that there might be a story about what happens to people who go around propagating this idea. I think for some people this just does not seem like a profound enough idea to build a whole teaching of Buddhism around, so they need to read in other dharma teachings.

With that said, I agree that Never Disparaging is not encouraging all these behaviors. He is only pointing out their tathagatagarbha, which I am becoming more convinced is the whole point of Lotus Buddhism according to Nichiren - point out people's tathagatagarbha to them - nothing more is necessary. Hence the Buddhism of Sowing. Once the tathagatagarbha is pointed out to a person, the theory goes, it begins to sprout and eventually becomes a Buddha, naturally. Hence the lack of practices prescribed by Nichiren other than daimoku and shakubuku. All the rest, including ethical behavior flows from seeing the universality of Tathagatagarbha. I think if you profoundly see all beings as tathagatagarbha with this immense potential to be a Buddha, you'd naturally step in to protect a 10 year old boy from being raped by a 50 year old man.

I guess I read the supplementary dharma into the story of never disparaging, but not in the way you suggest.

[ Parent ]
Disagree
QQ, this is such a gross misrepresentation of Nichiren Buddhism that I gotta call you on it:

He is only pointing out their tathagatagarbha, which I am becoming more convinced is the whole point of Lotus Buddhism according to Nichiren - point out people's tathagatagarbha to them - nothing more is necessary. Hence the Buddhism of Sowing.

Again, this is nihilism with a smiley face. Anything goes; it's all good, Bud.

Really? You just say, "Hey, you're a Buddha" to everyone you meet, and that's what Nichiren intended as practice?

Hardly. If so, Nichiren could have dispensed with the gosho, gohonzon, daimoku, and his lifetime of remonstration.

Why bother with faith, practice, and study, when all that really matters is telling people that they're Buddhas? (As if people universally share a correct understanding of the word "buddha"!)

Perhaps you've found it easy to convince yourself that you perceive the Buddhahood of all beings, and that many others perceive it, too, just by having been informed of its existence -- and, therefore, ethical actions somehow "naturally" flow from this perception.

But I call bullshit. Buddhist practice -- as Nichiren and countless other great teachers have shown us -- is a lifelong struggle with delusion. You're expressing precisely the noxious belief that the article's author rejected:

Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible-like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.

I don't know what's worse. People who are aggressively opposed to Buddhism, or people who presume to be "enlightened."

[ Parent ]
I keep finding myself having to defend ideas I don't hold...
You wondered how just complimenting people and telling them that they have tathagatagarbha could invite anger? I think you just proved my point.

I'm being a wise ass. Is it OK to joke?

More seriously.

You are not understanding my argument. Its not what you characterize it as. And your assumptions about my own personal views and practice are wrong.

I'm here and will respond. You don't need to create a straw man QQ to kick around. Want to know what I think? Ask. Need clarification on what I write? I'm a few million electrons away.

What I suggest about Nichiren's views are based on my inquiries and observations. I'm open to being convinced of other interpretations, but this is what I found. If you are interested in the details as to why I have come to these views, I will share, and would happily like feedback and to be challenged.

I don't necessarily hold all the views that Nichiren seemed to have as my own practice. I find Nichiren very problematic in many respects. At the same time, I find his ideas and actions he took based on those ideas remarkable. We're talking about a guy who spent a good part of his career telling anyone who would listen that the war, disease, natural disasters, etc. were due to the gods abandoning the nation. Does that raise some cautionary flags about how to read him? He also hung all of his credibility on the prediction that Mongols would come and destroy the country. When it didn't happen, he never brought it up again. At the same time, I think he did do what he claimed to do - live the theory that Chih-i and Saicho only talked about.

Now, to address your characterizations of what I suggested the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren seemed to say.

First, far from nihilism with a smiley face, the idea that all beings have the tathagatagarbha is actually one way in which a universal ethics can be established. Ethics needs a reference point - in the West it used to be God, or the Soul, or the assertion that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Maker, and more recently, humanist approaches assert that Ethics is founded in the intrinsic dignity of all human beings, whatever that means - an article of faith on par with a God given soul as far as I can see. For Never Disparaging, it is founded in the destiny that all beings will attain buddhahood. That is no more obscure than any other basis for a system of ethics and morality.

"I would never disparage you (let alone kill you, or steal from you, or lie to you, invade your privacy, disenfranchise you, or do anything harmful to you). You are destined for Buddhahood (the highest goal in Buddhism, a Bhagavan, worthy of offerings; as a potential Buddha, I happily give you all you need to live a fulfilled and happy life until I can't give you anymore, and then I will go into debt to provide comfort for you, work my fingers to the bone for you, lay myself down as a carpet for you to walk on, etc. etc. etc.)" I don't know about you, but if we ran our society on that principle, we will have gone a long way to manifesting the Buddhaland in form.  In any event, all of that flows from realizing that all beings are Buddhas to be. Even without understanding the Buddha (the top of his head cannot be seen!) Buddhists have never had a problem honoring the Buddha. All we do with the assertion of universal Buddhism is that we now consider everyone to be worthy of that respect.

That's the Lotus Sutra.

Now you say if all Nichiren was teaching was pointing out this Tathagatagarbha, what is the need for all his writing, gohonzon, daimoku, protests, etc.? What else? To tell everyone that the world of Buddhahood, the Tathagatagarbha, is within each of our lives. Precisely what Never Disparaging did. In fact, Nichiren writes that he is like Never Disparaging for a future preaching of the Lotus Sutra. He compares his Daimoku to Never Disparaging's Daimoku. Am I wrong? At times he compares himself to Visistacaritra/Jogyo, but Visistacaritra's practice is the same - spreading the Lotus Sutra.

And what happened when Nichiren went around telling everyone that all beings have Buddhahood and that the people in charge of the country need to start promoting this teaching instead of teachings that obscure this fact? He got tiles thrown at him, he was attacked with staves, he was banished over and over. Just like Never Disparaging to whom he compares himself in numerous writings.

In all of the Gosho I've read, there is only one precept that Nichiren counsels. He says, you don't have to practice the 5 paramitas, he says you don't have to follow the Vinaya, or the 5, 8, or 10 precepts. He says you don't have to follow the instant bodhisattva precepts of Mt. Hiei. He just says one precept - Faith in the Lotus Sutra - and what's the message of the Lotus Sutra? Well for one, it contains all the other teachings implicitly - they are all expedient expressions of the Lotus Sutra - sometimes, though, you can only recognize it as the Lotus Sutra after its been pointed out to you... but what's the Lotus Sutra?The Buddha's infinite life span, the universal prophecy of Buddhahood, including sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, women, animals, pretas, hell dwellers, asuras, gods, Bodhisattvas, etc. etc. etc. How is that prophecy possible? Because of the universal tathagatagarbha. The world of Buddhahood in your own life.

If you can find other teachings in Nichren's writings without having to insert commentary to get the meaning you suggest, please, show me. I really want to know. Contrary to what you seem to think, my mind is pretty open and I like being spurred on to learning more, even when it gets uncomfortable and requires that I throw all of the ideas I've been working with into the garbage.

[ Parent ]
PS
I don't find it easy to see Buddhahood in the world around me at all, let alone in myself. But I try. I think you do, too. I think we all do. A constant struggle to see the enlightenment in our lives.

This is hard enough, and like I argued, contains all the other precepts like not killing, not stealing, not lying, etc. If you struggle to see the Buddhahood in someone as a Buddhist, how could you treat them as anything less?

Nichiren repeatedly explains that all the benefits of other practices naturally flows from following the one precept. If you disagree, show me where Nichiren wrote something else.

[ Parent ]
On reading your post again-
You seem to take my suggestion that Never Disparaging only points out people's buddhahood and assume that it is the same as an approval of abhorrent behavior. When you quoted me, you left out this sentence that prefaced what followed:

With that said, I agree that Never Disparaging is not encouraging all these behaviors.

There's that question - Is it the fault of the Buddha if people listening don't understand? Is it the fault of the road builder that the traveler gets lost?

If I point out to someone that they have the world of Buddhahood in their lives and then they go and kill someone, can you in any way say that I gave a pass and approved of that person's behavior?

[ Parent ]
Tetchy tetchy
QQ, there's no worming your way out of what you said. Encore:

He is only pointing out their tathagatagarbha, which I am becoming more convinced is the whole point of Lotus Buddhism according to Nichiren - point out people's tathagatagarbha to them - nothing more is necessary. Hence the Buddhism of Sowing.

I'm not misquoting you. I'm not twisting your words. That's what you said.

I replied that you are mistaken. I said that you're misrepresenting what Nichiren Buddhism teaches. You threw a three-comment conniption fit in response. Who's tetchy here?

Yes, the diamond precept of Nichiren Buddhism is to embrace the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren wrote hundreds of pages about what it means to embrace the Lotus Sutra. He established a daily practice of chanting daimoku -- and he inscribed the gohonzon -- as a way for his followers to embrace the Lotus Sutra.

Perhaps you'd like to reduce "embracing the Lotus Sutra" to just embracing the chapter starring Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, and adopt his practice as your practice. Please do! I wouldn't dream of stopping you. Best of luck to you!

Still, I have to call bullshit -- again -- if you're going to claim that "the whole point of Lotus Buddhism according to Nichiren" is to point out people's Buddhahood.

No, QQ. Nichiren asked his followers to do more than that. He asked his followers to manifest Buddhahood in their current lifetime. For that purpose he prescribed the chanting of daimoku. Further, he urged his followers to exert themselves in practice and study.

Is it really so hard? Manifesting Buddhahood--like a lotus blooming in the muddy swamp of samsara--is the whole point of Lotus Buddhism according to Nichiren. Further, according to Nichiren, the way to do this is to embrace the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra.

"...point out people's tathagatagarbha to them - nothing more is necessary."

Nothing more is necessary, QQ. That's what you said. Spin all you want. Your interpretation is not an accurate portrayal of what Nichiren teaches.

[ Parent ]
Who's tetchy here?

We All Are! P^)

If we weren't, we would not be asking questions and finding human answers! P^)

Aint Buddhajones a lovely mire?

The reductive analysis of Buddhism, and in particular Nichiren Buddhism, brings up some lovely points.

Telling someone that they have inherent Buddha nature is insufficient - you have to show them.

If the idea is that telling some one is sufficient. then telling everyone you meet that they are in fact green lizards in disguise from the planet Zog should be sufficient to propagate that idea.

Sitting and chanting any phrase is insufficient - you have to show it has value whether that is NMRK, "I'm a great person" or even "We Are...".

Many Gurus are presently making Millions of dollars in peddling Wealth Creation seminars which have so many using mantras all day long to convince themselves that they are already millionaires - and they just have to chant this until the money roles in. The only one's getting rich are the seminar providers.

Nichiren did not exist in a vacuum, and for that matter neither did that old guy called Siddhartha.

Why would there be distinctions on how to teach and communicate with others, if just telling someone was sufficient? It's not just telling - nut the way it is told that is significant.

If it is sufficient to just tell another that they have a seed - and that makes this planet Nirvana, then the idea of Green Lizards from planet Zog looks better by the minute.  

I can't wait for the Transporter to be invented - "Beam Me Up Buddha" will save us all much debate! P^)



"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."

[ Parent ]
Hiyako Donburi
Telling someone that they have inherent Buddha nature is insufficient - you have to show them.

There is only one person who can show Buddhahood, and that's the Buddha. Unfortunately, we live in a time when there is no recognized Buddha living.

When the Buddha is alive, you can have faith - Sraddha - in the person who is teaching you doctrine because you can judge by their appearance and conduct whether the teaching they offer is effective.

When the Buddha is not alive, we have no enlightened being to have faith (sraddha) in. Therefore we can only study the doctrine, and we can only strive to have personal knowledge and confirm the teaching.

This distinction is contemplated in the Lotus Sutra - if you notice there are separate instructions for when a Buddha is in the world and for the time after a Buddha passed into extinction. In the Lotus Sutra, the instructions for after the Buddha passed into extinction are somewhat unhelpful - it talks about responding with joy on hearing about the Buddha's life span, but then qualifies that saying, if you can respond this way its because you already met a Buddha in the past.

So, the Buddha is still proposed as the original cause of enlightenment and a personal encounter where he teaches you the Lotus Sutra is necessary to get the ball rolling to enlightenment. And what does the text say about encountering the Buddha? Have trust in the Buddha, and then have a disposition to recognize in your own mind the dharma of his life span. It says have confidence in the Buddha's teaching - if you can summon a single moment of recognition of the Buddha's life span, you are on your way to enlightenment.

The problem is, you can't show a person they have the Buddha nature. They either recognize it in themselves, when the Buddha points it out to them, or they don't. If you don't recognize it, you can't understand it. This is why the Lotus talks about Adhimukti - which means opening your mind to a dharma - rather than sraddha (confidence/faith) when referring to the Life Span teaching that lies at the heart of the Sutra. In order to develop an understanding of the life span, you have to open your mind to it - recognize it as something that can be examined and is worth examining.

It seems what many Mahayana Buddhist commentators was saying was that this is that gate you have to enter to attain enlightenment. If you don't enter that gate, the Buddhadharma will always remain something outside of you. Outside of you, it will never be internalized, no personal knowledge of it can ever develop.

This idea might sound simplistic, but give it some thought. I think you'll find it is a profound problem. How do you come to an understanding of something you don't recognize? Also, whether you want to or not, if the idea is pointed out to you, can you ever then not recognize the idea? Can it ever not play a role in the construction of your world? (Wo)man's mind once stretched by an idea never regains it original dimensions.

[ Parent ]
zen?
qq, is it your position that nichiren did NOT teach that one can fully awaken to buddhahood by chanting daimoku? Rather, one's mind must spontaneously open, as in zen?
[ Parent ]
No.
He taught that chanting the Daimoku was the essential practice. The problem, though, is whether he really meant simply verbalizing the words was enough or whether there was more to it. He seemed to think that chanting with the mouth was just one aspect - clearly he also encouraged mental daimoku - a mindset of devotion to the Sutra - as well as activity expressive of Daimoku, ie. Shakubuku.

Satori in the zen conception does not really coincide with what Nichiren taught as far as I can tell. My understanding of what they mean by that is one of those eureka moments where clarity is achieved.

There is a sudden and gradual enlightenment aspect to what Nichiren taught, but its different than the sort of spontaneous opening you make reference to.

In the context of the Lotus, the gradual and sudden have to do with a similar idea, but its more orthodox Buddhist in its understanding.  On one hand, there are the gradual paths where one undertakes practice for eons, culminating in final nirvana.  In contrast, there is the suggestion that in a sense, the moment the aspiration for enlightenment arises, the goal is achieved, even though in many respects much work remains before its perfection. My sense is that this moment of aspiration relates to that moment of adhimukti - becoming aware of the Tathagatgarba.

As for how does practice that is more than strictly chanting daimoku fit in to Nichiren's scheme of things? The short answer seems to be - whatever furthers the full realization of Buddhahood is included in the Daimoku - and so actually doing them with the mind that it is an expression of Daimoku makes it Daimoku.

[ Parent ]
Bodhisattva Uniquely Delayed?
This idea might sound simplistic, but give it some thought. I think you'll find it is a profound problem. How do you come to an understanding of something you don't recognize?

By looking again with clearer vision!

Have a look at the Lotus Sutra.

What is the most startling moment to all concerned?

Maybe an unlimited number of Bodhisattvas stretching back across eternity popping up and introducing themselves.

Could that signify in any way that all beings are those Bods - and as is made clear they are Bods because they have met a Bud and so know all about Buddhood - and have witnessed enlightenment.

It sounds to me as if you are attempting to argue that you are the only sentient being on the planet - neh Universe - that failed to turn up to bear witness to The Lotus Sutra!

What do we do with you Bodhisattva Uniquely Delayed?  P^)

 

"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."

[ Parent ]
ha
And now I feel like you're all just playing a prank on me because you're all in on a joke that I've been left out of...

Its one of those logical loops in the sutra. There are other points in the sutra where exactly this sort of thing come up -

Manjusri says to Maitreya at one point, "Don't you remember you were my disciple when I taught you the Lotus Sutra a zillion eons ago?! Silly Bo."

[ Parent ]
Huh?
Brooke,

Reads like you are telling Q what he really meant, and then saying gotcha! I am not saying that was your actual motivation, just that is the way I read it. I do agree about making the effort to manifest Buddhahood.  

robin

[ Parent ]
Direct quote
QQ said what he said. We can all read it for ourselves. Maybe he didn't mean what he said. Maybe he's upset that someone disagrees with what he said. It doesn't change the fact that he said it. I don't think anyone's out of bounds for responding to what he said. Where's the problem here? I don't get what brooke did wrong.

"If only I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say that the Soka skunk has changed its stripe." -- auntie
[ Parent ]
Well
I'm not trying to squirm out of my statement. I stand by it.

As best I can tell, Nichiren taught this as the essential practice:

Recognition of one's own potential/destiny to manifest Buddhahood and telling others of their own potential destiny.

That's the minimum. Nothing more is necessary.

What I suggest about respect for people's potential for enlightenment follows from internalizing that view. If you view every being as precious for their potential for enlightenment, you might tend to act a certain way toward them... like that scene in 7 Years in Tibet where the workers freaked out because building the Dalai Lama's movie theater was disturbing and killing worms. If you do that for worms, what about for people?!

You guys complain that this is not enough, that there must be more to his teaching.

Please find it and show us.

I have looked, and looked, and I just can't find it. I have wanted there to be more in Nichiren's teachings. I've wanted to find endorsement of compassionate activities to intercede in the suffering of others and bring them comfort. That sort of expression of compassion is just not endorsed by Nichiren. He belittles that kind of activity by one monk - Ryokan? - suggesting it was egotistical grovelling for good will.

I've wanted to find support for practices I undertake beyond this minimum - meditation, contemplation, etc. I can only find the limpest endorsement to take up other practices if one has the time, inclination and capability, but only if the essential practice is front and center. And the benefit of these supplemental practices seems to be viewed as minimal, but tiny in comparison to practice of the essential.

I've come up with some rationale for why this single precept might make sense and the implications of this message, but that might actually require some earnest discussions instead of the kind of silly back and forth this discussion, and most discussions in Nichiren forums, and maybe in discussions is general, tend to devolve into. We like to have our prejudices confirmed, and we react with hostility when ideas that disagree with our sensibilities are suggested.

That is what I find Nichiren taught regarding the message of the Lotus Sutra. Others recognize this as a message of the Lotus Sutra, but no one else took the radical step of relying solely on this teaching the way Nichiren did. This is not a radical assessment of Nichiren. Pick up any scholarly article about Japanese Buddhism, and that's pretty much the blurb you get about him.

As far as I can recall, Nichiren never counseled that we should "manifest" or "display" Buddhahood. That would be impossible. You can't will something that simply is not. If you have not attained full blown buddhahood, you can't consciously display buddhahood. The only thing I can remember him counseling is to not give up one's devotion or to discontinue upholding the Lotus Sutra. That to single mindedly uphold the Lotus Sutra was carrying out the actions of a votary, and that is what was asked by the Buddha when he entrusted the teaching to the people of the latter day. Upholding the sutra, according to Nichiren, is hard enough without having to burden yourself with all kinds of other practices. If anything, Buddhahood will manifest of itself as one undertakes the essential practice. Maybe. But only a Buddha might be able to recognize it. Nichiren never displays  the conceit to actually overcome that catch - 22 in Buddhist doctrine.

The way you guys are reacting so strongly to my comments, it kind of makes me chuckle. Its like life is imitating art. "No, its not just as simple as my Tathagatagarbha!"

What's the big deal? So some medieval monk taught something that doesn't jive with our contemporary sensibilities. Is that surprising? If he did teach things that confirm our assumptions, where are they?

[ Parent ]
for serious?
qq, as far as i can tell, i'm the only one disagreeing with you, so it's bizarre that you refer to me as "you guys." persecution complex, maybe?

seriously, qq, in all your exhaustive study of nichiren's writings, you've never come across any places where he fervently exhorted his followers to chant daimoku? You've never found an instance of him saying that chanting daimoku is the primary practice?

is this what you're asserting? For serious?  

[ Parent ]
to clear something up
I can see how you might get the wrong impression.  

Recognition of one's own potential/destiny to manifest Buddhahood and telling others of their own potential destiny.

I guess I need to make clear that I'm following Nichiren's conventions in not distinguishing the meaning of the Lotus Sutra from practicing it, ie. chanting Daimoku. Or thinking Daimoku, or living Daimoku. In my understanding of Nichiren's thinking, these things are all mutually inclusive - its all chanting Daimoku, so to speak.

So, yes, I agree with you that he taught chanting the daimoku as the one essential practice.

For serious.

[ Parent ]
science and religion
I agree the author gets science and religion wrong. I was talking to my in-laws who are both physicists and have an amused curiosity about my Buddhist practice recently. We were talking about how science is limited to the collection of information and offers nothing more than what the experiments are designed to show. We talked about how information is radically relative - only being true with regard to whatever reference point is proposed in the experiment. Even time is nothing more than a measurement of change.

I told them that's pretty much what Buddhist have concluded also.

Science's only goal is to increase this information which amounts to an increase in knowledge for those who study and understand it. This is pure science.  Then there is applied science which is a whole different thing but all has to do with human beings as the ultimate reference point.

Coming back to Buddhism, I referred to the intrinsically neutral nature of information and that Buddhists try to resolve the suffering that happens because human beings have this tendency to read more into the information than is actually there.

The author has read too much into science. Science offers no grounds to conclude that we are just incidents of inanimate processes. That conclusion is simply not supported by anything science has yielded. He's cloaking his nihilism in the garb of science. That's pretty fashionable these days. He's also generalized religion way too broadly.

[ Parent ]
Tathagatagarbha
My ex-boyfriend posted photos of my tathagatagarbha on facebook. I'm sooo embarrassed.

A stranger walked up to me and wanted to talk about my tathagatagarbha. I slapped his cheeky face.

My gakkai chapter chief asked me to reveal my tathagatagarbha. That's where I draw the line.

Seriously, if you went around America telling everyone about their tathagatagarbha, people would just look at you funny.

It's more weird than people saying, "Jesus loves you." At least with "Jesus loves you," people have some idea what you're getting at.

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

tathagatagarbha is the new black.
My gakkai chapter chief asked me to reveal my tathagatagarbha. That's where I draw the line.

I knew it!

So tathagatagarbha is the latest marketing tool from Spherical Gaming International?

People looked funny when they were accosted in the streets, handed a card with some odd words on it, and then abducted with hesitant consent to go to a meeting! The rest is history and ambiguous statistics.

If it worked before it can work again!

So where do I buy 1000 tathagatagarbha cards - and are the benefits the same as before, or do I get a discount? P^)  

"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."

[ Parent ]
Bogged down
I have just read through these comments in a cursory way. My response is not necessarily on topic. My impression is that people who have practiced Buddhism for a long time become deeply enamored of the lingo. We love the Japanese or otherwise foreign sounding terms. We love using these terms because we like to display our in-depth knowledge. If we're going to discuss many of the finer points of Buddhism, we have to use these words because there are no English equivalents, much the way a doctor must use latin to refer to specific muscles and nerves.

I wonder if this helps people understand Buddhism better, or whether arcane word choice obscures Buddhism more.

I wonder if by trying to re-think and even out-think Nichiren we are creating anything but confusion.

The disagreement I see here is bogged down in overcomplicated doctrine and word choice.

Why can't we find a better way to say "Buddhahood" in English?

Mustard?
Why can't we find a better way to say "Buddhahood" in English?

Because "Nice" just doesn't cut the mustard?

On the other hand - it's because the term Buddhahood has no direct translation in to English?

The same occurs in so many languages - Like Italian. You have the word "Simpatico" which sounds like sympathetic, but there is just no direct translation. It's a cultural concept that defies translation!

And I agree - using arcane and culturally based language just gets in the way - so we loop back to Zuiho Bini! P^)

Infuriating - aint it?  

   

"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."

Thought Experiment.
I like thought experiments and I was prompted to try one.

Recognition of one's own potential/destiny to manifest Buddhahood and telling others of their own potential destiny.

That's the minimum. Nothing more is necessary.

Right! So you are alone on a desert island and totally alone.

If we take the views expressed at face value, you can't do even the basics or minimum and therefore can't be a Nichiren Buddhist.

Under the circumstances can you still be another type of Buddhist?  

"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."

You are not alone!
qq, as far as i can tell, i'm the only one disagreeing with you

Brooke, Make that Plus 1! You are NOT Alone! P^)

I may come at the issue from a different direction, but I do find the arguments lacking rigor and validity. For example this:

There is only one person who can show Buddhahood, and that's the Buddha. Unfortunately, we live in a time when there is no recognized Buddha living.

... and where does Nichiren Teach that one?

The use of pronouns is troubling! The use of the definitive article "THE" is also most troubling and has no reason.

If you even consider the Lotus Sutra and a little issue around a rather large party in the upper atmosphere, the definitive article should not be applied.

At that time the Buddha emitted a ray of light from the tuft of white hair [between his eyebrows], immediately making visible the Buddhas in the eastern region in lands as numerous as five hundred ten thousand million nayutas of Ganges sands.

That's just a quick and dirty quote from Lotus Sutra alla Burton Watson - but there are so many more!

The fact that a chap referred to a Taho was sitting in a rather improbable Jeweled Stupa also negates the definitive article.

THE is a terrible word that has lead so many into confusion and error! It just limits comprehension and understanding - it is quite Un-Buddhist.

Brooke - You may consider that you are alone, but apparently uncountable Buddhas have your back! P^)

"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."

...?
... and where does Nichiren Teach that one?

I should have added "in this world at this time".

A couple terms get conflated as "faith" in Buddhism. They kind of roughly have similar meanings, but actually are different in significant ways.

Without getting bogged down into the terms - there's faith in a teacher, where you trust the teacher to lead you. You don't take what the teacher offers on faith - but because you trust the teacher you feel confidence to go ahead and examine what (s)he teaches and then come to your own conclusions. When you find what the teacher teaches to be true, you then have a rational basis to trust in the teaching.

This was what the Buddha in the Pali Suttas counsels.

A second term that gets translated as faith, and that is arguably more critical in the Lotus Sutra, refers to moment of consciousness when a dharma is "accepted". By that is meant nothing more than that moment when an object becomes distinguished in ones consciousness and the mind settles on it, recognizing it. This step comes before there is any understanding of it, let alone "faith".

Nichiren seemed to understand this problem in the Lotus Sutra. He might not have. I haven't found anything decisive.

That was what I was getting at.

But yes, theoretically, there are infinite Buddhas around.

[ Parent ]
...? @ last
But yes, theoretically, there are infinite Buddhas around.

So you treat your own innate Buddhahood and the Innate Buddhahood of all beings - and even the innate Buddhahood of all objects as just theoretical?

Oh Boy!

Nichiren was not so much a theoretical type - he had a habit of getting down and dirty with the people. But then again - he did come from a rather earthy back ground! You can take the Etta out of the village, but you can't take the Etta out of the monk.

Nichiren was clear that his own understanding was informed by Ichinen Sanzen alla T'ien-t'ai and his study of Buddhism, especially the Lotus Sutra.

Your finagling with teachers is silly!

There is alack of clarity in your communications that is not the responsibility of the reader. The cause lies with you and we are all effected by it - but not as much as you yourself.

.... refers to moment of consciousness when a dharma is "accepted".

Why not live dangerously and try a different word?

Change "accepted" to "experienced" and see if it fits better!

If that seems dangerous and naughty - be a real devil and see if the two work together and can even have the same meaning!  

I'm worried that it took so much to get you to even concede that there are theoretically infinite Buddhas - so if you are introducing yet more distinctions ....

Occam's razor does not work with Buddhism - except to cut your own throat!  

Oh it reminds me all so much of College Philosophy lectures and debates about trees falling in woods and if no one was about did it mean the duck quacked!

Did you ever hear the story of the man sitting under a tree and being a bit ascetic - then he heard a comments about a reed in the river and it bending?

Maybe you need to bend more and find where it takes you!... go on, just a degree or two to the left...

Teaching is an art, and often comes from unexpected teachers! Even Old Sid was subject to the enlightenment of plants and learned from them - just as they were!

I'm starting to believe that you my dear QQ are an inveterate Door Nobber!

A Door Nobber is a person who you can sit and talk to about life the universe and everything, and the debate can go on and on. Then when it comes time to leave, they get up, go to the door, and as they grasp the door nob and turn it - that is the moment they turn round and ask about what has actually been on their mind!

It's the realization of loss that prompts the question.

Oh you are interesting! I would love to meet you and we would go to a bar and get roaring drunk - even if you are tea total!

The true path of life lies in the affairs of this world. The Konkomyo Sutra reads, "To have a profound knowledge of this world is itself Buddhism." The Nirvana sutra reads, "All scriptures or teachings, from whatever source, are ultimately the revelation of Buddhist truth."

Earthly desires are enlightenment - even the desire for enlightenment is enlightenment itself!

Cheers!


"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."

[ Parent ]
Oh. My. God.
More of the same. What do you guys think to accomplish? Are you all really this disingenuous? I've gone over the recent threads, and what I find happening over and over is that statements I make are taken out of context and used as a basis to attribute ideas to me that never came up.

1021,

I was responding to your response to me. I pointed out there is no Buddha in this world toward whom one can direct faith, referring to a human teacher who has fully awakened. You responded by pointing out the episodes in the Lotus Sutra where Buddhas in other worlds are revealed to counter my use of the particle "the". I responded, conceding these theoretical Buddhas. You responded by construing my response into a denial of Buddhanature.

This is frustrating because one of the things that set off this conflagration in the first place is that I wrote the practice of the Lotus Sutra is the assertion of the universal Tathagatagarba.

Gotcha!

---

Adhimukti

I used "accepted" because, feeble as my attempt may be, there is no clear translation of adhimukti into English and "accept" kind of gets to the meaning. Its one of those terms for something that simply has not been broadly recognized in the consciousnesses of English speakers and so its a truly foreign word with no way to easily describe it. To illustrate, the inuit have dozens of words for snow to describe all the various conditions it can appear as. Similarly, Buddhist psychologists have broken "experience" down into subtle dharmas that we have scarcely begun to consider.

"Experienced" actually doesn't fit. Its too broad a word to refer to the pinpoint moment of consciousness that adhimukti refers to.

[ Parent ]
So basically ...
... it keeps on coming down to semantics and the issues of attempting to translate a culturally specific concept from one or even many languages to English!

Now where I have heard that mentioned before? P^)

Language is such a poor vehicle for communication - which is why so many Buddhist teachers use it to relate concepts which the student has to explore!

If it was easy to grasp enlightenment I'm sure that someone would have rewritten all works and summed them up with "Just Flip The Switch!".

It's like the Joke - How Many Buddhists Does It Take To Change A Light-bulb?

Answer: Just 1, but The Buddhist Has To Be Enlightened.

Maybe if you asked questions of people here rather than presenting arguments that people frankly are not interested in, you may have a more fruitful dialogue.

I do wonder at one thing. Is your evident questing bringing you happiness?

You seem to be living solely in the world of Learning - which can be a positive place to be, but also can make life dry, erudite and ultimately sole-less. Of course if your lucky it can also lead to realization, but it's not guaranteed.

Still wondering about dragging you off to a bar and seeing you after 10 shots of sour mash! P^)

Yours

Bodhisattva Eternally Giggling!


"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."

[ Parent ]
I'll drink you under the table, buddy.
We can always simplify everything to one problem or another. But look, we agree language is problematic. I get the sense you're content with leaving it at that. You commented that ambiguity allows for exploration or something. Did I get that right?

I take a different approach, but one that I don't think offers any less opportunity for exploration. Despite the difficulties, I think meaning can be mined and ideas can be refined - indefinitely.

-

Maybe if I asked questions? Fair enough. I haven't had much chance for questions though - I keep being put on the spot with mischaracterizations of my comments and then attacks on me based on those mischaracterizations.  

In general, I approach discussions as discussions. You make a statement, I comment on it. And you comment on my statements. Questions might be appropriate at times when seeking clarification on another's position.

So let me give this question think a try?

What do you think is the best way to approach a discussion?

I don't particularly recall you asking many questions. You  seem to do the same as me - exchange comments. Not many questions.

-

Does what I do bring joy - believe it or not - yes. It also brings frustration. But expanding my knowledge does ultimately bring joy, especially when I've been working at a problem for a while - like trying to understand a passage in a text, or a term, and I have a break through.

To others, what I am occupied with may seem dry. Maybe even pointless. There are things I think are dry and pointless that others enjoy - jazz for instance. To each their own.

Do these discussions bring you joy? You seem to enjoy them. You seem to relish in expressions of whimsy.

Giggle on!

[ Parent ]
Defensiveness
QQ, you said:

I keep being put on the spot with mischaracterizations of my comments and then attacks on me based on those mischaracterizations.

As far as I can tell, you've been challenged to clarify your statements. I am among those who found your statements initially baffling and convoluted, so I am glad that you've tried to clarify your points.

I suggest that you write a blog entry on your own blog or here that clarifies your position. It may be crystal clear to you, but it isn't to others -- hence the questions.

Also, your defensiveness distracts from your message. By defensiveness, I mean your tendency to answer one comment with three more. Again, I suggest you hone your argument and post it in one place, rather than asking people to jump across several threads to piece together your thesis.

You say that you wonder at the anger you see here. I don't see a lot of anger. I see a lot of "What? Huh? What are you saying? How can that be, when...?" I wouldn't take any of it personally if I were you.

[ Parent ]
Fun until...
It's always fun until someone gets hurt. I suspect that Queequeg is yanking our chain, Nichirenites.

QQ, is your goal to reduce this thread to a cut-and-paste of Gosho quotes? Your assertions are so laughably, obviously false -- you must be trolling here. For example, you say:

As far as I can recall, Nichiren never counseled that we should "manifest" or "display" Buddhahood. That would be impossible.

Excuse me for a moment as I pick myself up from the floor. Does this quote from Nichiren ring a bell?

Be resolved to summon forth the great power of faith, and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo with the prayer that your faith will be steadfast and correct at the moment of death. Never seek any other way to inherit the ultimate Law of life and death, and manifest it in your life. Only then will you realize that earthly desires are enlightenment, and that the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana. Even embracing the Lotus Sutra would be useless without the heritage of faith.

Or this?

Buddhism teaches that, when the Buddha nature manifests itself from within, it will receive protection from without. This is one of its fundamental principles.

As for your belief that compassion has no place in Nichiren Buddhism, consider:

If Nichiren's compassion is truly great and encompassing, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo will spread for ten thousand years and more, for all eternity, for it has the beneficial power to open the blind eyes of every living being in the country of Japan, and it blocks off the road that leads to the hell of incessant suffering.

If you disagree with Nichiren Buddhism, fine. I think we're all interested in reading critiques. But you're not critiquing. You're misrepresenting Nichiren Buddhism.

Nichiren Buddhism in a nutshell, in Nichiren's words:

I firmly uphold the teaching that the Lotus Sutra is supreme among the sutras the Buddha has preached, now preaches, and will preach. Moreover, I chant the daimoku, which is the heart and core of the entire sutra, and I urge others to do likewise.

Yet you claim that daimoku practice isn't necessary. Manifesting Buddhahood is impossible. Compassion is absent from Nichiren Buddhism.

Queequeg, you're so hilariously, crashingly wrong that I'm sure you must be joking.

Misrepresenting
Be resolved to summon forth the great power of faith, and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo with the prayer that your faith will be steadfast and correct at the moment of death. [snip]

From the Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life and Death. Addressed to Sairenbo.

There are doubts about the authenticity of this writing. You clearly accept it, and I tentatively consider it authentic so we have some common ground.

Nichiren is counseling on having faith at the moment of death - not manifesting Buddhahood here and now.  Earlier in the writing he relates how a thousand Buddhas will greet a person at their moment of death. He is not suggesting that one can manifest Buddhahood now, but that having faith is the key to some future attainment.

Other passages from that writing:

Think of those thousand Buddhas extending their hands to all of Nichiren's disciples and lay supporters who chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo as melons or moonflowers extending their slender vines. My followers are now able to accept and uphold the Lotus Sutra because of the strong ties they formed with it in their past existences. They are certain to obtain the fruit of Buddhahood in the future. The heritage of the Lotus Sutra flows within the lives of those who never forsake it in any lifetime whatsoever-whether in the past, the present, or the future. But those who disbelieve and slander the Lotus Sutra will immediately "destroy all the seeds for becoming a Buddha in this world." Because they cut themselves off from the potential to attain enlightenment, they do not share the heritage of the ultimate Law of life and death.

The heritage and manifesting Buddhahood are two different things, apparently.

Moving on...

Buddhism teaches that...

From Three Kinds of Treasure. Written to Shijo Kingo. I really like the letters to Shijo Kingo.

A fuller version of the quote -

Buddhism teaches that, when the Buddha nature manifests itself from within, it will receive protection from without. This is one of its fundamental principles. The Lotus Sutra says, "I have profound reverence for you." The Nirvana Sutra states, "All living beings
alike possess the Buddha nature." Bodhisattva Ashvaghosha's Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana says, "Because the true abiding Law invariably permeates one's life and exerts its influence, illusions are instantly extinguished, and the Dharma body manifests itself." Bodhisattva Maitreya's Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice contains a similar statement. What is hidden turns into manifest virtue.

This relates to the teaching on the mutual possession of the ten worlds. (notice Nichiren quotes from Never Disparaging?) According to this teaching, even hell, for instance, contains the world of Buddhahood and therefore all beings are capable of responding to the Buddha, and the Buddha responds to all beings. There is this constant, dynamic relationship between the practitioner and the Buddha. That relationship is never not working, but sometimes, like the poor man, we don't recognize our father and instead run away in terror (LS Chapter 4). Interacting with the Buddha, though, is not manifesting Buddhahood - its awakening to the world of Buddhahood in our lives, but its not so cut and dry.

In this letter, Nichiren counsels Shijo Kingo that he must conduct himself carefully and not lose his temper, which would be a betrayal of the practice of the Lotus Sutra which would then put him in danger of not receiving divine protection from the deities. Here Nichiren is not, by any stretch suggesting that Shijo Kingo can fully manifest his Buddhahood, but that if he upholds his practice, the gods will respond to his Buddhanature and protect him. Another place Nichiren relates this idea is in the parable about the caged bird who sings and draws the wild birds close to him.

Another passage from that gosho.

The heart of the Buddha's lifetime of teachings is the Lotus Sutra, and the heart of the practice of the Lotus Sutra is found in the "Never Disparaging" chapter. What does Bodhisattva Never Disparaging's profound respect for people signify? The purpose of the appearance in this world of Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, lies in his behavior as a human being.

I never wrote there was no compassion in Nichren's teachings. But what I was referencing was what I might call, Liberal Activist Compassion. Personally, I do what I can to help others. But I do it just because its the right thing to do. I don't do it as part of my religious practice. That's what I was pointing to. Nichiren's compassion is his revelation and propagation of the Lotus Sutra. He also helped people in practical ways along the way - like advising Shijo Kingo how to deal with his murderous co-workers - but this was an act derivative of his main practice of spreading the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren never counseled "Go Do Good Works! Mitzvah!"

I firmly uphold the teaching that the Lotus Sutra is supreme among the sutras the Buddha has preached, now preaches, and will preach. Moreover, I chant the daimoku, which is the heart and core of the entire sutra, and I urge others to do likewise.

People seem to think that I think Nichiren taught that Daimoku is not necessary. I've responded to this above, but I will respond again: Nichrien Taught the Daimoku as the essential practice. That teaching is the same as Never Disparaging's practice.  It is also the practice of Visistacaritra/Jogyo. It is also the practice of Shakyamuni. And all Buddhas of the 10 directions.

That's what Nichiren taught as far as I understand.

I, in the course of discussing what the Buddhapath entails suggested that there is nothing outside of it. That's were I brought up Never Disparaging and his practice.  That was MY personal view "in my more radical mood". It was part of the discussion at that time. I did not make any claim that this was what Nichiren taught.

There seems to be this assumption that I'm some sort of fundamentalist telling everyone else how to practice. I think I've repeatedly said that I have no opinion what people do. However, if we're going to talk about Nichiren's ideas and what he taught, that I do have opinions about based on his writings.

Hey!

[ Parent ]
Competing Gosho
Nichiren Buddhists can't get out of their own way. Nichiren offers his followers an ingeniously simple yet doctrinally sound way for all people to embrace the Lotus Sutra and manifest myoho in their daily lives. His followers proceed to tie themselves in knots with stupid discussions such as this online.

Presuming themselves intellectual and educated, Nichiren's modern-day critics twist the Gosho to mean what they want it to mean. I call it pissy-parsing. "Nichiren said faith but really he meant something else. Nichiren said manifest but he didn't mean manifest." Any Gosho quote can be held side by side with another quote that says almost the opposite, or can be discounted as a forgery, or can be picked apart until it supports a peculiar point of view point of view.

We have all wasted our time participating in this asinine debate and humoring people who think theory is important. This is why Nichiren Buddhism is destined for the dustbin of history. Nichiren's well-meaning followers suffer from a debilitating combination of logorrhea, self-importance and resistance to chanting daimoku as Nichiren urged.

Sigh.
Repeatedly, statements I've made have been taken out of context and then slights and insults directed at me. Its sad that the discussions keep devolving into personal attacks. I have to wonder at the anger exhibited here.

I commented this a while ago.

At the minimum, if you hold the Daimoku in a place of privilege in your mind, you could be considered a Nichiren Buddhist. I think Nichiren spells out the Essential Practice in a Gosho that I think is called Reciting the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra. He sets up a framework of supplementary practices that include reciting the sutra, honoring buddhas of the 10 directions, and if you can - meditation on ichinen sanzen.

http://www.buddhajones.com/sho...

Eventually, though, somewhere along the way, it was suggested by Brooke and 9 Lives that I denied Nichiren taught the Daimoku as the essential practice. Come on. Really?

Brooke started it off when she took a statement I made out of context:

He is only pointing out their tathagatagarbha, which I am becoming more convinced is the whole point of Lotus Buddhism according to Nichiren - point out people's tathagatagarbha to them - nothing more is necessary. Hence the Buddhism of Sowing.

The full paragraph where that was cherry picked out of reads:

With that said, I agree that Never Disparaging is not encouraging all these behaviors. He is only pointing out their tathagatagarbha, which I am becoming more convinced is the whole point of Lotus Buddhism according to Nichiren - point out people's tathagatagarbha to them - nothing more is necessary. Hence the Buddhism of Sowing. Once the tathagatagarbha is pointed out to a person, the theory goes, it begins to sprout and eventually becomes a Buddha, naturally. Hence the lack of practices prescribed by Nichiren other than daimoku and shakubuku. All the rest, including ethical behavior flows from seeing the universality of Tathagatagarbha. I think if you profoundly see all beings as tathagatagarbha with this immense potential to be a Buddha, you'd naturally step in to protect a 10 year old boy from being raped by a 50 year old man.

Not content to selectively quote me and then attribute ideas to me I never gave expression to, Brooke goes on:

Perhaps you've found it easy to convince yourself that you perceive the Buddhahood of all beings, and that many others perceive it, too, just by having been informed of its existence -- and, therefore, ethical actions somehow "naturally" flow from this perception.

and closes with this:

I don't know what's worse. People who are aggressively opposed to Buddhism, or people who presume to be "enlightened."

I responded with what I think was a reasonable and thoughtful response - albeit disagreeing with Brooke's positions. I wanted to be understood correctly, and so ended up with three posts.

Brooke blasts back and continued harping on the quote taken out of context:

Nothing more is necessary, QQ. That's what you said. Spin all you want. Your interpretation is not an accurate portrayal of what Nichiren teaches.

The spin I have to respond to is a spin Brooke put on my words.

The record of the exchange is above. I think it speaks for itself.

The next subject that raised ire was whether Nichiren counseled to manifest Buddhahood.

Here is what I wrote:

As far as I can recall, Nichiren never counseled that we should "manifest" or "display" Buddhahood. That would be impossible. You can't will something that simply is not. If you have not attained full blown buddhahood, you can't consciously display buddhahood. The only thing I can remember him counseling is to not give up one's devotion or to discontinue upholding the Lotus Sutra. That to single mindedly uphold the Lotus Sutra was carrying out the actions of a votary, and that is what was asked by the Buddha when he entrusted the teaching to the people of the latter day. Upholding the sutra, according to Nichiren, is hard enough without having to burden yourself with all kinds of other practices. If anything, Buddhahood will manifest of itself as one undertakes the essential practice. Maybe. But only a Buddha might be able to recognize it. Nichiren never displays  the conceit to actually overcome that catch - 22 in Buddhist doctrine.

9 Lives then adds two cents with quotes from Gosho to refute my comments.  I responded substantively to them already. But just to illustrate how this whole thing has snow balled out of proportion and put me in a position of having to deny ideas attributed to me, 9 Lives closes with:

Yet you claim that daimoku practice isn't necessary. Manifesting Buddhahood is impossible. Compassion is absent from Nichiren Buddhism.

Queequeg, you're so hilariously, crashingly wrong that I'm sure you must be joking.

Am I crazy? Am I missing something here?

I aint mad atcha.

Just a little sad how this exchange has gone down.

Am I .....
Am I crazy? Am I missing something here?

Oh to be rhetorical!

If those two questions were answered, would you accept the validity of what people said?

I think not - but you may find asking those questions of yourself an interesting mode of looking at that which vexes thee!

You keep slicing and dicing to get at ever smaller parts and definitions - and yet It seems that such a road will not lead you to satisfaction!

Dharma is like water and profoundly deep! This makes many think the deep water is better than the shallow water!

The water is the thing - not the relevant vertical separation!

Which is heavier - a Ton Of Feathers or a Ton Of stone?

Cheers P^)  

"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."

[ Parent ]
a ton of flax?
...

Is heaviest?

[ Parent ]
Potato(e)
... so you get the issue with language then! P^)

Questions - Questions - Questions!

You seem to relish in expressions of whimsy.

Relish is too narrow a word! Live it is more like it!

But then again - I don't limit my potentials, so a bit like Old Nichiren I communicate in different ways with different people.

That means I have to address two issues. My ability to communicate with that person, and their capacity to receive and understand that communication. Thats why a bar is a good venue!

In fact - I do believe that is a factor that plays out across all Buddhist teachings! The communication dynamic - not the bars! P^)

It's why I do tend to limit the Gosho Quotes - so many ignore the Time The Person and The Place and grab any old jumble of words out of context and slap them on like a Band Aide. Not God Medicine and not wise!

Don't mistake whimsy for me knowing that when a tree falls over in the wood and no one is about Ducks both quack and sing! P^)

I wonder if you have ever seen manifest Buddhahood?

How would you define such a thing?

Is it even possible?

Does it only occur whist gabbling off certain words in a repetitive manner?

What are the requirements of Manifest Buddhahood?

Questions - Questions - Questions!  

"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."

[ Parent ]
Agree to disagree
No offense, QQ, but I don't understand why you expect everyone (or, frankly, anyone at all) to agree with you.

Sorry if I'm not stating this properly. This is what I understand you to be saying:

1. Chanting daimoku is the same as the practice of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging.

2. Chanting daimoku is asserting the potential Buddhahood of oneself and others, and this assertion in itself is the entirety of Buddhist practice as prescribed by Nichiren.

3. Further, it is impossible to manifest/display/tap/reveal/awaken to one's Buddhahood because there is no actual, living Buddha in the world at this time. However, in the future everyone will be a Buddha.

As I understand it, this is how others are responding:

1. Chanting daimoku encompasses the entire Lotus Sutra -- including other bodhisattvas and their actions, such as Bodhisattvas of the Earth, Bodhisattva Pervciever of the World's Sounds, etc. Bodhisattva Never Disparaging is included, but the Lotus Sutra is not just about one kind of bodhisattva action.

2. Chanting daimoku is not just an assertion of the existence of -- or future promise of -- Buddhahood. Rather, Nichiren taught that by chanting daimoku, one brings forth/enters into/manifests/awakens Buddhahood in self/other, self/environment, etc.

3. Further, it is possible to awaken/manifest/draw forth Buddhahood because there is an actual, living Buddha alive in the world right now, per the 16th chapter of the Lotus Sutra revealing the deathless, ever-present life span of the Buddha. "He is here always, preaching the law."

QQ, it's pretty clear to me that your assertions are at odds with widely accepted tenets of Nichiren Buddhism. Maybe you are right and others are wrong. Maybe everyone is wrong and no one is right. I don't know. I'm sorry you're frustrated with the discussion. Maybe everyone should give up the hope of reaching an agreement and agree to disagree. Again, I don't know.

Reverend Ryuei of Nichiren Shu posted a few articles about Buddhahood and what it means vis-a-vis Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra. Thay might shed some light on this topic. Please check them out:

Faith in Buddhism

Faith in Becoming Buddha

Faith in Being Buddha

Quit Buddhism? | 47 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forgot your username or password?


Fraught Feeds
Chris Holte
Update — Number 2 completely liquified
Main Page
Fire or Water?
Ryuei
Hanamatsuri 2012 Dharma Talk on Easter and Buddha’s Birthday
Charles Atkins
Excommunicated, for the Third Time
Robin Beck
Could Of Gone Off?
Diary of a Chapter Leader
To buy or not to buy
Joe Isuzu's Daily Slander
Chanting For Bacon

Message Boards
Nichiren Shu
Re: Side Altars
Side Altars
Gohonzon Forum
Re: [IndependentSangha] Significance of Individual Efffort
Re: Significance of Individual Efffort

Twitter Searches

Buddhism

Daimoku, Nichiren, NMRK

Nichi Huh?

Fuju-fuse

Honmon Butsuryu Shu

Kempon Hokke

Nichiren Shoshu

Nichiren Shu

Nipponzan Myohoji

Rissho Kosei Kai

Shoshinkai

Soka Gakkai

Bookshelf Classics

Buddha by Karen Armstrong

Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor

Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism by Chogyam Trungpa

Modern Buddhist Healing by Charles Atkins

Opening the Heart of the Cosmos: Insights on the Lotus Sutra by Thich Nhat Hanh

Riding The Wheel To Wellness: A Buddhist Perspective On Life's Healing Gifts, Meditation, Prayer & Visualization by Charles Atkins

Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior by Chogyam Trungpa

Threefold Lotus Sutra by Bunno Kato

When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times by Pema Chodron

The Wisdom of No Escape by Pema Chodron

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki

Search




Advanced Search

Daily Feeds
PewForum.org News
National Post: UPDATED: Board suspends Toronto Islamic school’s operating permit after row over anti-Jewish curriculum
DMN ReligionBlog
TEXAS FAITH: Same-sex marriages and changing attitudes
Tricycle Blog
Himalayan Buddhist Art 101: Meditational Deities
Rev. Danny Fisher
Check Out “Buddhism 101 with Rev. Danny Fisher” Over at Shambhala Publications’ Newly Revamped Website
CNN World
Swim lessons help kids break cycle
SunSpace
Video: Pat Robertson advocates destroying Buddha statues

Sites to See

Angry Asian Buddhist

Alltop Buddhism

As the Wheel Turns

Barbara's Buddhism Blog

Buddhist Channel

Call me Queequeg

Chanting for Animals

Daily Scoldings

Dragon King's Daughter

The Endless Further

Former SGI Member Forum

Gohonzon Galleries

Gongyo on Line

Hardcore Zen

How Cults Work

Interdependence Project

Jacqueline I. Stone

Lotus Flower SGI

Lotus Sutra in English

Mark Porter's forum

Mark Rogow's blog

Martin Bradley's Gosho Translations

Nadia Bolz-Weber

New Buddhist forum

Precious Metal

Rougebuddha

Ryuei's Books and Essays

SGI Obituaries

Shii Slams Nichiren

Shodaigyo Streaming

Soka Gakkai Unofficial message board

Soka Member

Steve Milburn's blog

UU world

Whiskey River

Worst Horse

The Enchanting World of the Lotus Sutra by Gene Reeves (pdf)


HOME
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License.
If you quote or borrow anything from this site, please cite your source as buddhajones.com and/or provide a link to this site.
By posting comments on this site, you consent to the use of your screen name and comments by BuddhaJones in any media.
info@buddhajones.com
Read and participate at your own risk.

Powered by: SoapBlox