Dhamma-nating the conversation, part III: The Controversy

Welcome to part 3 of my personal overview of Nichiren Buddhism. If you are interested you might also want to review part 1 and part 2. I am not a Buddhist scholar, so if you find errors or misrepresentations, please understand that they are strictly unintentional. Also, I have no desire to rehash or add fuel to debates between Nichiren Buddhists, such as those involved in the Nichiren Shoshu/Soka Gakkai schism. Thank you.

The Controversy

So why did I decide to use the title Dhamma-nating the conversation for this series? Other than the obvious pun, it represents how I perceive Nichiren Buddhism. I have looked at (which does not imply having seriously studied or having spent several years practicing) various forms of Buddhism such as Chan, Pure Land (Chinese and Shin), Kagyu and other Tibetan schools, as well as a smattering of others, including Nichiren Buddhism. But unlike the others, there is a kind of cloud that hangs over my contemplation of Nichiren Buddhism, most notably its apparent exclusivism and an association with aggressive proselytizing. In this sense, when I read or discuss the life, writings, or legacy of Nichiren, particularly the form of Buddhism he propagated, the aforementioned issues dominate my interest in and influence my perception of the validity of Nichiren Buddhism and the usefulness of practicing it.

One element contributing to such issues is the notion that because Nichiren is supposed to have revealed the ultimate vehicle of Buddhism based on his study of T'ien T'ai's and Saicho's commentaries on the Lotus Sutra as well as his own reflection on this text, other schools must have provisional teachings which are ineffective at worst and harmful at best. Nichiren discussed the errors of other schools (as he saw them) on numerous occasions, which included the condemnation of greedy monks with political ambitions, doctrines or practices that were incomplete or ineffectual, and a failure to properly revere the Lotus Sutra.Assuming one wanted to interpret Nichiren more charitably, one could suggest that his criticisms were focused on the state of other Buddhist sects in his day and as he knew them, rather than simply as a universal condemnation of all other forms of Buddhism. Which begs the question of whether one has to simply accept any interpretation of Nichiren, charitable or not, to see any value in his overall work or on the practice(s) he advocated (see part one for more on that).

Another element, tied to the first, is whether a person feels that the (selected) collected writings of Nichiren are like flawless scripture, a final word of authority to be quoted as authoritative when discussing proper interpretation of the Lotus Sutra, other sutras, other schools, and the general teachings of Mahayana Buddhism. Rather than seeing Nichiren's writings as instructive, inspirational, and culture bound to his time and place, I get the impression when reading materials written by Nichiren Buddhists that to fail to agree with Nichiren's stance on an issue is tantamount to heresy, so that when disputes over the meaning of intent of a passage from Nichiren's readings arise between sects or schools of Nichiren Buddhism they are known for (even if only due to the vocal actions of a minority) accusing each other of "slandering" the Dharma. In this since they are following the example that Nichiren set down when complaining about and criticizing other Buddhist sects in Japan during his own lifetime.

I have no desire to be a strict apologist for Nichiren or Nichiren Buddhism, but if the criteria for "judging" other forms of Buddhism or even other spiritual paths has to do with upholding the Lotus Sutra, then it is worth asking - what is the Lotus Sutra in that context? Is it just the book, just the words on the page, or just the title? Nichiren was a fan of hyperbole and metaphor, and he says that the title represents the whole text, and that each letter is also the whole text. I take that to refer to the power of the message in the text (note: this also has to do with views on words and power in certain cultures, so I am aware of and not excluding that influence). If a particular teacher or teaching is, in fact, consistent with the message of the Lotus Sutra - that all sentient beings have the capacity to awaken to Buddha-nature - then I fail to see why they would be deemed as inferior. I have found expressions in other traditions of the nature of reality-as-it-is that are consistent with and reinforce the concept behind the teachings of ichinen sanzen. Does that make them "enemies of the Lotus Sutra", as Nichiren himself might say?

That doesn't mean that Nichiren Buddhism is not distinct, that it is just the same as everything else. It doesn't mean Nichiren Buddhism doesn't make a unique and important contribution to an understanding of the Dharma. Nor does it even mean there can be no real reason should choose Nichiren Buddhism over some other tradition. It does suggest though, to me, that there is a limited confidence or even a latent sense of inferiority in the view that Nichiren Buddhism must be the one and only true and superior Dharma, and everything else is just a collection of misguided misinterpretations masquerading as genuine insight. That is, is the Dharma of which Nichiren wrote, symbolized through chanting Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo to a Gohonzon, limited to those objects? If one takes seriously the injunction not to seek this Dharma, and by association enlightenment, outside of oneself, and if it does permeate the universe, then shouldn't a sincere practitioner of such a Dharma be able to "see it" expressed everywhere, even if not confined to a particular form such a scroll or a sound? Perhaps one may feel that Nichiren gave such a Dharma its most direct or potent expression, but after all, can something one believes is so pervasive and essential be limited to any particular manifestation of form? Can such a sincere person not here nam-myo-ho-renge-kyo in the silent meditation of Zen, or in the visualization of Chenrizig during Tibetan pujas, or even in a soulful rendition of "Amazing Grace"? Isn't sharing the insight of the Lotus Sutra helping others to find this principle, and if so, must those dedicated to doing so not "find it" themselves however it may express itself in a particular culture?

The toolbox

I sometimes think about the fact that many of the separate Buddhist traditions are so heavily distinguished by emphasizing a particular method. Pure Land, as most of us casual students of Buddhist history will know, with its emphasis on nienfo, was a part of the larger package of techniques and emphases before it became a separate tradition. Focusing awareness through meditation and short-circuiting our habitual mind/conditioned existence through bizarre riddles, shouts, and whacks with a stick, while now associated with Chan and most especially its Japanese transmission Zen, were in fact part of this larger package of tools. Even Nichiren Buddhism's recitation of the daimoku, "Nam(u) myoho renge kyo", can function both as a form of nienfo (Buddha-remembrance or Buddha-embodiment) and as a koan. -And I don't want to leave out all the other traditions and schools, so feel free to add yours to the list in the comments section.-

Whereas in the Nichiren tradition and its many schools, there is an emphasis on their own method as the superior practice in the current age, there is also an appreciation for the teaching of the Lotus Sutra that the various methods of different Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Enlightened Beings were expedient means used by skilled teachers to reach people in different circumstances. Getting away from the idea that everything other than the Nichiren practice is "provisional" and antiquated, I have always found the ecumenical aspect of the Lotus Sutra to be quite inspiring. I am not concerned with whether the historical Buddha really gave this teaching before he died, or whether those who inherited his living tradition and realized this truth put it in a proper and acceptable form as yet another expedient means.

I was thinking about this idea, of the tool box, as I struggled to find a remotely useful analogy in clarifying my thoughts about having a settled mind. I was trying to convey that in areas where we should be perpetually open to experiences, flexible, and free from preconception, we in fact are closed to experiences, inflexible, and bound by preconception. This is particularly true when we are pleased with just how open-minded and impartial we are. And, ironically, this inflexibility comes from not being settled where it counts. With the clear vision, pure mind, and boundless heart of Bodhi (these are actually just three different labels for the same thing), we can, as the popular expression goes, be comfortable with uncertainty. With a settled, or adamant, mind, or as some traditions refer to it, a diamond that cuts through illusion, one has the truest form of what is captured by another popular Western Buddhist phrase - beginner's mind. And thus one who is so settled is able to be "unsettled" (which I previously referred to as "agitated"), or more accurately, unhindered, when encountering the utter novelty of the ever-unfolding moment in which we live.

(As an aside, that last though reminds me of many of the teachings of which I have become fond... "Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana"-Platform Sutra of Hui Neng; "Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form"-Heart Sutra; "The Way does not require cultivation, just don't pollute it."-Chan ancestor Mazu. Teachings which are oft-repeated: "Although you may understand the explanations, if you are still suffering because of problems, you clearly do not understand the true nature of your mind, your body, and your senses."-Lama Zopa Rinpoche; "You have always been one with the Buddha, so do not pretend you can ATTAIN to this oneness by various practices."-Huang Po; "Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death."-Dogen)

Does that mean that any Buddhist tradition is valid? No. But the proof is in the pudding. Rather like the Bible verse that suggests "By their fruits shall you know them" (Matthew 7:16). Nor is a tradition valid just because it worked for some in the past. Any sacred tradition which is not a living tradition is hollow and headed for hot-headedly intolerant radicalism or which goes the other direction into stale, inflexible, musty formalism. If you assume for the sake of argument that there is a Source which pervades and sustains our existence, whether this is expressed in terms of shunyata and tathata, or the yin and yang of the Tao, whether it is personified or non personified, as religious or non-religious, etc., and if you are a teacher who is trying to open people's eyes to their true nature, then one must further presume that an effective teacher is one who:

A) has had her or his own eyes' opened,
B) is deeply concerned with helping others do the same, and
C) is good at doing so.

Hence such an effective teacher would need to be able to read people, gauge their capacity for different types of teaching, and pick and choose from the toolbox to use not only the right practice but the right level of practice for each person they are teaching. For one student, a very direct method may helpful because they are already on the verge of awakening. For another, this same method may only cause confusion, frustration, and resentment.

In my previous attempt to write about being settled and unsettled, I ended with "So get settled and shake things up, or, for some of you, shake things up so you can get settled!" I think that's how it is with some methods. For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

No wonder some Chan masters chased their students with a length of bamboo and whacked them each time they tried to answer questions such as "What is your original face?", even when the student gave the answer of not answering at all. Each time the master asked the question, habit mind, conditioned mind, popped up, so "whack". Then again, "whack". Kind of like whack-a-mole with the . Unfortunately I think this kind of story suggests to some people that anti-intellectualism is the ultimate goal, rather than training the mind. A hammer is a very useful tool, but not for watering plants. In the same way, the rational, analyzing intellect is awesome and wondrous and highly useful for many things, but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for each occasion - enjoying a song, for example, or creating art. So to get to that clear insight and settled mind, the master would drive away things which hindered the student's perception. No wonder masters in that and other traditions would encourage students to visualize and verbalize something which would invoke a vibrant and peaceful yet non discursive state. No wonder other masters in various traditions instructed their students to develop serene trust in the vows and compassion of the Buddha(s).

So, rather than simply telling their students to do exactly what their teacher(s) told them to do verbatim, an effective teacher tries to discern what will be of use. That doesn't mean they won't have common methods, but that they won't apply them in the same way for each student. I would hope, for example, that even in Shin, where one moves toward trust in Amida's vow and develops "deep hearing" through recitation of that Buddha's name, that a teacher would recognize the different needs of those who may not yet truly see saying the nembutsu as a form of gratitude and those who do. That is, whatever tool one may find helpful at a given moment, it is just that. Which would normally bring us to the popularized phrases about not mistaking fingers pointing to the moon (sacred traditions and their practices) for the moon itself (reality as it is) or perhaps about ditching the raft (similar lesson). But that would just be a little too... too... well, too much. Instead, I just want to bring it back to this--

For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

Which is why my favorite teaching, the one that has been most effective so far in revealing and reminding me of both aspects of this single truth, is one that was given to me by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa...

"Never think that you've got it, and never doubt that you do."