Buddhist Readings for Christians: Come follow me

Dynamic tranquility: the Buddha in contemplation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is a follow-up to a post about some similarities in the writings on Buddhism by Nikkyo Niwano, the founder of modern Nichiren Buddhist lay organization Rissho Kosei-kai, and some elements of Christian teachings. The following excerpts are taken from the chapters in Buddhism for Today corresponding to chapters 14 through 16 in the Lotus Sutra. Some is simply common to spiritual discipline and advice, others perhaps not so common. Only some of many possible examples are given.


The point here is not to make claims about the relative truth of Buddhism or Christianity, or to try to encourage people to convert to a particular religion. But maybe there can be more understanding between people with different backgrounds regarding religion.


From Chapter 14:

[I]n a movie we see a man carrying a pack weighing thirty or forty kilograms on his back and climbing a mountain, bathed in perspiration. Viewers of such a film must feel how arduous it is to climb the mountain. Sometimes it takes three or four hours to advance only twenty or thirty meters. Moreover, the climber risks his life with every step. If it grows dark while he is scaling a rocky cliff, he must hang from the rock and sleep in place in subzero temperatures. If a man were obliged to undergo such an ordeal on the orders of his employer, then indeed he could bring a complaint against the employer for infringing his human rights. However, a mountain climber does this voluntarily. Though he certainly feels pain, his mind is peaceful, and his pain even contributes to his pleasure and enjoyment.

In practicing the teaching of the Lotus Sutra, so long as a person forces himself to endure persecution and the scorn of outsiders though filled with anger and resentment, he is a beginner in Buddhist disciplines. A person who has attained the Way can maintain a peaceful and calm mind even while suffering, and can feel joy in the practice itself. Until a person attains such a state of mind, he must take scrupulous care not to be tempted or agitated by the various setbacks in his daily life.

...

Buddhist Readings for Christians: Appearing Buddha, Original Buddha

Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Buddhism for Today, a contemporary commentary for the Lotus Sutra, by Nikkyo Niwano, the founder of Rissho Kosei-kai, a modern Nichiren lay organization.  Sound familiar?

The "appearing Buddha" indicates the historical Shakyamuni, who was born in this world, attained Buddhahood after years of asceticism, and died at the age of eighty. Therefore the Law of Appearance includes the teachings of the organization of the universe, human life, and human relationships on the basis of the experience and enlightenment of Shakyamuni, who attained the ideal state of a human being. Shakyamuni also teaches us that wisdom is the most important attribute for maintaining a correct human relationships.

Shakyamuni has continually taught people throughout the universe since the infinite past. In other words, the Buddha is the truth of the universe, that is, the fundamental principle or the fundamental power causing all phenomena of the universe, including the sun, other stars, human beings, animals, plants, and so on, to live and move. Therefore the Buddha has existed everywhere in the universe since its beginning. This Buddha is called the Original Buddha (hombutsu).

The human form in which the Original Buddha appeared in this world is the historical Shakyamuni as the appearing Buddha. We can easily understand the relationship between the two when we consider the relationship between electric waves and television. The electric waves emitted by television transmitters fill our surroundings. We cannot see, hear, or touch them, but it is a fact that such electric waves fill the space around us. When we switch on our television sets and tune them to a particular channel, the same image appears and the same voice is heard through every set tuned to that wavelength. The Original Buddha is equivalent to the person who speaks from the television studio. He is manifest not only in the studio but also permeates our surroundings like electric waves. The appearing Buddha corresponds to the image of this person that appears on the television set and to the voice emanating from it. The appearing Buddha could not appear if the Original Buddha did not exist, just as no television image could appear and no voice be heard if electric waves did not exist. Conversely, we cannot see the Original Buddha except through the appearing Buddha, just as we cannot receive electric waves as images and voices except through the medium of a television set.

Thus, the Original Buddha is the Buddha who exists in every part of the universe from the infinite past to the infinite future, but only through the teachings of Shakyamuni, who appeared in this world in obedience to the truth of the Original Buddha, can we understand that truth. We cannot declare that either the Original Buddha or the appearing Buddha is the more holy or the more important: both are necessary.

Radio and television stations emit electric waves, in the hope that as many people as possible will receive them through their television sets and radios. In the same way, the Original Buddha exists in every part of the universe, ready to save all beings of the universe. He instructs men, animals, and plants; and salvation means the full manifestation and complete development of the life essential to each form of life according to its true nature.

The Original Buddha is one with the truth of the universe. We have only to tune the wavelength of our own lives to that of the truth of the universe, and the Buddha appears to us. At that time the dark cloud of illusion covering our minds and bodies vanishes completely and the brilliant light of our essential life begins to shine from within our minds. This state of mind is our real salvation, and the spiritual state that we should attain.

The Original Buddha exists permanently from the infinite past to the infinite future, that is, this Buddha is without beginning or end. This Buddha appears in various forms appropriate to the particular time and place for the salvation of all people by means suited to their capacity to understand his teachings. This is the concept of the Original Buddha.

Religious ceremony and the inner landscape

Image via WikipediaEach sacred tradition has some way of connecting what we consider to be the objective, or external world, to the subjective, or internal world. Even those which state that it is all one in God or in Mind or the like.

In Nichiren Buddhism, this is the Gohonzon, a scroll with sacred writing embodying the Lotus Sutra. One is to chant to the scroll, which is a physical representation of the Buddha-nature in the person chanting. The outer representation of the altar and scroll, recalling the Ceremony in the Air, is supposed to merge with the inner landscape of those performing this ritual.

In Shin Buddhism and in the larger realm of Pure Land Buddhism, the same can kind of association can be applied to its ceremonies and to the imagery of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land.

In Judaism, this externality was the Ark of the Covenant carrying the tablets of Moses as well as the tent in which it (and the Spirit of God) resided. It was also associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, and after the last demolition of the temple building, it was associated with the scrolls of the Torah itself. In Christianity, after and perhaps prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, this externality was transferred to the person of Jesus of Nazareth and was then extended to the Eucharist. And so on.

And I can hear some mumbling. "So what?"

What does taking the Lotus Sutra seriously look like?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some excerpts from a discussion on the impact of the message and underlying wisdom of the Lotus Sutra, which is the central text for a branch of Buddhism founded around 750 years ago by the Japanese monk Nichiren. The question is what does it mean/look like to take the idea of universal human worth and potential seriously in a world in which deluded beings have many idea about where lasting fulfillment and joy come from...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Image via Wikipedia

There is always a tension between those recognizing interdependence, that phenomena arise from the ultimate/divine (in the "cycle" of form/emptiness), and the subsequent solidarity with all sentient beings, especially the neglected and abused and rejected, on the one hand, and those obsessed with divisiveness and exclusionism, the quest for a selfish and arrogant version of purity, and the subsequent hollow piety and sadistic judgmentalism on the other hand. We can see this in the struggles of the Hebrew in the Old Testament and the warnings of prophets like Isaiah and Micah, we can see it the New Testament and the visions of the Gospel and early church and how that vision has been betrayed again and again throughout the ages even though a remnant always keep true to that original vision.

And we can see the same pattern in Islam, "Hinduism", Earth-based and small-scale indigenous religions, Taoist and Confucianist traditions, and alas, yes Buddhism. And this is why some are drawn to the Lotus Sutra schools, as the Sutra is revered in large part for this inclusive, universalist message. You are not doomed to a helpless fate of perpetual suffering, you are inherently worthy, and you can make a difference, no matter who you are. Nichiren in particular was concerned with making the benefits of Buddhist wisdom, which really isn't strictly Buddhist wisdom at all, available to even those with jobs or stations in life considered unclean or despicable, much like Jesus was hanging out with the outcasts and the sinners out of his concern for awakening all people to the kingdom of heaven.

Those who are benefiting from the existing societal and cultural conditions are the least likely to care about a message that they contain the seed of Buddhahood, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or anything else that essentially turns conventional wisdom about power, happiness, etc on its head. The rich and powerful are frequently too invested in that system. Such movements don't spread by the greatest, but by the least, in the abandoned areas and among the forgotten people. It is truly a grass-roots kind of model, a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. People spreading such insights tend to move to such areas and associate with such people not out of pity, but out of the genuine belief in interdependence/emptiness (hence the immense and inherent value of all beings) and because it is at the margins and through the cracks of our shared delusions that we have the greatest chance to spot a glimpse of the truth. Often it is those on the fringes who have something to share with *us* about reality-as-it-is.

People spreading such messages, even if it is just told in the way they live, tend to be considered dangerous. As Dom Helder Camara noted, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” Following a tradition that challenges the conventional deluded wisdom can never be complacent or safe (safe here is a relative term, but I am going for danger of physical harm). Shakyamuni's disciples knew that, and a great example of that is found in the Lotus Sutra in the story of the disciple willing to endure taunts, torment, and death to spread the universal wisdom. The early followers of Christ found this to be true as well. And the writing of Nichiren and his early followers confirm the same trend. We could look to other traditions as well, but the point is made: Give lip service and occasional small acts of charity to the poor, the criminals, and the outcasts, and you will be lauded; identify and stand with these people and be lambasted. Speak power to domesticate truth and you are counted as wise, but speak truth to challenge power and you are counted as wreckless.

So, given the nature of the Lotus Sutra and the example of Nichiren and his early disciples, I was wondering how the followers of the truth expressed in the Sutra had reacted to it - how has it affected your life - in what way has your life been "dangerous", "scandalous", or "wreckless" according to the standards of samsara? How has this reflected your conviction and faith in Nicheren's teachings? I am not here to stir anything up, I am just honestly curious how you have been deeply touched by exposure to such wisdom and the manifestation of that connection in your life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to one reply...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not advocating social progressivism or Marxism in anything I wrote in my post. But this does highlight what I said - feed the poor and you are a holy person, but ask why they are poor and you are a Communist. Since when is living your life in a way that is consistent with true compassion for all sentient beings, identifying with those suffering the most, or warning against the dangers of the conventional values of samsara strictly a political issue or solely liberal/progressive virtues? In fact, many liberals and progressives are just as "stuck" in divisive and deluded thinking as their conservative counterparts.

Christ's followers also wanted him to be a political figure and were initially very disappointed in the fact that he wasn't going to pick up a sword or a banner and march into Jerusalem demanding change. Instead he was in this way like Shakyamuni, who just kept teaching, just kept traveling, just kept changing one life at a time, always struggling to find ways to demonstrate why the conventional wisdom of power, force of arms, elitism, materialism etc, which seemed so "right", were really a path to continued suffering.

Also, I never said Nichiren's teachings were strictly for planting seeds, but yes, that is a first step. If you don't even get people to start thinking or questioning their delusions, how will they ever be freed from them? But the seeds I alluded to in using Jesus as a parallel are like mustard seeds, which grow rapidly in most soils and spread like wild weeds. Obviously for Nichiren we might choose to think of Lotus seeds, and that is fine, since they remind us that cause and effect are initiated simultaneously, and just like death will follow birth, a well planted seed of wisdom will eventually sprout and blossom.

If you think that Buddhism should be outside of politics and economics at all costs, then this suggests it must not truly affect how people live or how they understand their existence, because how we live is interconnected with economic and political systems. Even the Amish cannot completely escape such connections. There are two ways of being involved in economics and politics. One is to jump in with a political party, or a corporation, or a lobby, etc, or maybe all of the above. Another is to simply affect and be affected by how people view and treat each other. In the latter case, the influence is indirect, but it is still there. If you are made aware that product is made with slave labor, and you can buy an alternative, this is still a political and economic impact, even if you don't organize others to do the same (and why not?). What I was writing about was a grass-roots, bottom up change from people who had been transformed, not multi-million dollar campaigns funded by wealthy donors (although if such donors want to spend that money building school, wells, etc I won't object).

Even SGI teaches this, does it not? Like Mother Theresa's admonition that all we can really do are "small things with great love", is this not similar to Soka Gakkai's message that human revolution begins with each person and that it spreads person to person. What kind of human revolution would it be if, after a couple billion people had been "tranformed", the current injustices and cruelties of this world continued on undiminished and unchallenged? In that case all of this is just a feel-good guilt eliminator rather than a catalyst for genuine awakening; a means of supporting the current upside down and wrong-headed priorities of a samsaric system by allowing some to believe that they can exist comfortably within it and yet feel they have resisted or escaped it. Shouldn't we expect more from the liberating power of such universal wisdom?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next part is about Fukyo, known also as Bodhisattva-never-disparaging, who according to the Lotus Sutra always greeted everyone by telling them "I would never dare disparage you, for you are all certain to attain Buddhahood!", and whether he was speaking truth to power...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Of course he is, because most systems tend to divide people into the worthy and the unworthy, the saved and the damned, the haves and the have-nots, etc. He is directly challenging this type of thinking which I described at the beginning of my original post.

2. Wise men are often seen as fools and dullards.

3. There is more to his example than you allow. At that time, everyone knew about Buddhism. It was an official religion in China and eventually in Japan. So he wasn't addressing an audience who failed to appreciate the significance of his words. It would like going around in today's culture and saying "You are a child of God, worthy of respect." And I doubt we are supposed to read his example with a literalist exegesis in terms of how to apply his method. That would be dull and annoying. St Francis of Assisi is often quoted for saying "At all times preach the Gospel, and when necessary use words." I would say the same here. "At all times preach the Dharma, and when necessary use words." In other words, it isn't just about a verbal greeting but a whole attitude towards how we view and interact with others, always keeping in mind "this person I am with is a future Buddha!"

4. Behaving like we take #3 seriously leads to the things I am writing about in this thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to another reply...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not suggesting being preachy, I am asking about living our values. I am not presenting that kind of choice [between siding with one group or one limited method against another], I am talking precisely about applying the universal wisdom found in the Lotus Sutra. I am against people focusing on righteousness in terms of judging others or justifying themselves, whether it comes from wealth, might or privilege or whether it comes from being in opposition to these things. One side looks down on the other as filthy, poor, and lazy, and the other side looks back and sees those who are callous, elitist, and judgmental.

What I am talking about is a unifying principle which recognizes the worth of all sentient beings. My point is not to make the wealthy and powerful out to be the enemy, it is simply true that the poor and disenfranchised tend to be more open to this message than those who think they are benefiting and prospering from the conventional view. And yes, the more invested one is in the system of samsara, the more likely to oppose efforts at exposing its flaws. But that doesn't make them the enemy and again, we need to resist the "us"=righteous and "them"=unrighteous mentality. Besides, everyone posting here is in the top 2% on the planet in terms of power and wealth, so obviously I'm not against talking to such folks or having compassion for them.

Note I suggested that cruelty and injustice should be significantly reduced, not necessarily eliminated, with a couple billion transformed people. And yes, cruelty and injustice do indeed come from deluded minds, and so if we reduce delusion, we ought to expect reduced consequences from such delusion. I mean, I was of the belief that Nichiren Buddhism was about action, cause and effect, and hence results, not just hoping for future salvation in a different realm. No one can give you what you already possess, but they can tell you that you have it and how to find it. Is that not what folks like Shakyamuni and Nichiren are supposed to have done and why they are revered?

Dhamma-nating the Conversation, part IV: Liberating the Conversation

This is the fourth and final installment of my brief review of Nichiren Buddhism. If you are interested, please read part 1, part 2, and part 3 if you are not up to speed on what I have already covered. I am not an expert or an established practioner of this form of Buddhism, so please forgive any errors. On the other hand, for those who are experts and/or established practioners of Nichiren Buddhism, this is a chance to see how it can look to other people and may assist in mutual understanding with people from other traditions.

Liberating the Conversation

Previously, I wrote:

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?

Here "the injunction" is referring back to an oft-cited quote by Nichiren. I realize that I may be poking some sensitive areas with a stick for some people, even though that is not my intention, and since such actions can provoke people to anger regardless of their intentionality, I again apologize for any such antagonism.

Given that I am not a strict traditionalist, modernist, or post-modernist when it comes to society, culture, meaning, and that which simultaneously involves all three in a direct and powerful way, such as religion, the quote above should come as little surprise. [previous examples of my thinking on such themes can be found here, and there, and definitely here and here, and ahh heck, there too]. That is, I am not talking about "cleaning up" Nichiren Buddhism to make it appear acceptable to modern Western standards, but rather re-framing it so that the principles and teachings are accessible to a different time and culture. Hence the need to understand the context of Nichiren's life and yet not be bound by it. That doesn't mean chanting the Daimoku in English, or dismissing mythological imagery, etc.

One might naturally ask, "Yes, that's all well and good, but why do you care?"

Well, as indicated by this history of this site, I have attempted to learn from many traditions, Buddhist and otherwise, and have discussed many forms such as Zen, Pure Land, etc. Moreover, while I had read the Dhammapada and looked into Buddhism, I never really gave it much serious consideration until I met a practicing Nichiren Buddhist online who was defending religious liberty, the science of evolution, and other issues that were of importance to me personally. He had a knack for weaving poetic simplicity and an unapologetic enthusiasm into his descriptions about life and meaning that was inspiring. So, the first form of Buddhism that I looked into when I considered giving it a try was Nichiren Buddhism, though I did not go so far as to established a regular practice with it. Partly this was because its representatives online and in books seemed to make such a fuss over criticizing the other Buddhist traditions, which then provoked me to learn more about those other traditions and Buddhism in general. In a sense then I have come full circle, having surveyed the landscape I am better able to incoorporate my own experiences of what might be useful or beneficial in other traditions, which is especially useful given my interest in interfaith and interspiritual dialog and understanding.

I cannot say to what degree various Nichiren Buddhists would agree or disagree with what I have written. Maybe one third would agree with half of what I said, or perhaps one eight might agree with one tenth of what I have said. Who can tell? Nor is it my goal to generate such agreement. If it occurs, that is fine. I have liberated my own conception of what Nichiren Buddhism is and what it can be, but I cannot and would not wish to impose my views on others. I simply wanted to share them in case they may be of use to others.

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?

Dhamma-nating the conversation, part II: The Core Concepts

This is the second installment of my brief amateur overview of Nichiren Buddhism. If you missed the first one you can read it here.

Is kosen-rufu really about "world dhamma-nation"? Can you stand my awful puns? Did I start this short series just so I could use that phrase? The answers to all of that and more appear nowhere in this post. But I do talk a little about Nichiren and the schools of Buddhism that follow his teachings, so, if that holds any interest for you, then read on!

The Core Concepts

In 13th century Japan, Buddhism was the dominant religion. From what I can tell, people believed in the existence of the gods and demons portrayed in the mythic (in this context myth=inspirational metaphor pointing to a greater truth) depictions of Buddhist cannon, including the various sutras. And people tended to believe that one's spiritual and religious practice had a direct affect on the natural world in terms of proper beliefs=peaceful, bountiful environment and wrong beliefs=violent, desolate environment. In Nichiren's time there were many natural and man-made catastrophe's. To borrow a Western phrase, it was somewhat Apocalyptic. Nichiren believed that by studying the sutras he could figure out where the country had gone wrong and prevent additional suffering on the part of the people of Japan.

Nichiren concluded that T'ien T'ai, a Chinese Buddhist scholar of another age after whom another Buddhist tradition was named (in Japanese it was pronounced Tendai, the dominant sect of Japan to which Nichiren himself belonged) had been right in suggesting that the Lotus Sutra was the most complete and correct and therefore foremost of all the teachings attributed to the Buddha. Today many Buddhist and non-Buddhist scholars believe that the Lotus Sutra was a culmination of Mahayana practice and philosophy focusing on the Bodhisattva ideal and an attempt to reconcile divisions among various Buddhist traditions and schools, but Nichiren cited it as the actual penultimate testament of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Guatama (the final being the Nirvana Sutra). Based on his reading of the Lotus Sutra as well as of previous scholars such as T'ien T'ai and Saicho, Nichiren concluded that the Lotus Sutra revealed the ultimate principle of the Buddha's teaching, ichinen sanzen.

I will not attempt a lengthy treatment of ichinen sanzen here. It refers to three thousand realms in a single (though-)moment. In the Buddhist cosmology there are ten worlds associated with cognitive-emotional states, such as hell (hate, despair), hungry-ghost (greed, obsession, deception), animality (lust, domination), asura (demon or demigod: jealousy, envy, doubt), human (passiveness, modesty, submissiveness), and heaven (bliss, joy, rapture). The basic idea is that when you use up the karmic consequences that landed you in one of these worlds, you will be reborn according to the karmic consequences you have accrued while in that world. Hence you may bounce up and down, from hell to animal to hell to human to heaven to animal and back to hell. Even humanit and heaven contain suffering because they cannot last and people crave to repeat experiences of those states. These are the six lower realms, in contrast to the four higher realms or four noble worlds. These involve varying states of realizing the nature of such a karmic cycle, inquiring and learning how to escape it (which is where Buddhism comes in), and then taking the necessary steps to actualize the teachings about how to transcend the cycle of birth for the benefit of all sentient beings (Bodhisattva). The highest of the ten worlds, that of a Buddha, is beyond rebirth. The principle of ichinen sanzen, according to Nichiren and the scholarship he cites, suggests that each world is present in all the others.

That is, as I understand it, these realms are not the strictly separate places they appear to be in some views of rebirth. Even within the depths of hell is the potential to realize one's own capacity as a Buddha, and even as a Buddha one is not separate from what others understand to be hell. All realms are conditioned phenomena and hence impermanent. This can be related to/supported by concepts such as dependent co-arising, emptiness, non-self, etc. To put it in Zen-like terms, the nine realms are akin to form and Buddha-nature is akin to emptiness. They are not separate, as emptiness manifests as form and form dissolves as emptiness. Hence three-thousand realms, or all the possible states in which we can exist, are always present in a single moment. The vertical dimension of eternity (single moment) intersects with the horizontal dimension of the everyday. The historical dimension (time and space) is enfolded in the Ultimate (dimension). To put it in Shin-like terms, the Other includes and completes the self. Not one, not two.

In any case, Nichiren claimed that this principle was the primary teaching the Buddha as presented in the Lotus Sutra, and that any part of the Lotus Sutra represented the whole. Hence the wisdom and the power of the teaching could be conceived of as existing in the title of the sutra, or Nam(u) Myo Ho Renge Kyo. This is akin to other Buddhist teachings which suggest that if you understand one aspect of what Buddha-nature really is, you grasp the whole thing. So to see one Buddha is to see all Buddhas, etc. It is a powerful literary device for summoning up confidence in the efficacy of a particular teaching or practice. However, Nichiren explicitly claims that even if you have never heard of or read the sutra or its primary teaching(s), that the teaching is so profound that just to say its name, Nam(u) Myo Ho Renge Kyo, will still benefit the person who recites it and aid them on their way to realizing enlightenment.

If you read Nichiren's work, you will see he has a flair for the dramatic and for hyperbole, and this is not a criticism. Indeed, the hardest thing for many people starting any spiritual practice is believing that it will work. This isn't just a doubt about a specific teaching or practice - it includes our own doubts about ourselves, our potential, and our capacity. As I recently wrote:

We cannot really conceive of possessing or deserving our true nature and such deep and abiding calm joy, particularly with a dualistic view of existence and attachment to form (or even to emptiness). So we see it as a mythic (which here is not used as a derogatory synonym for "false") exchange in which a being of infinite compassion has worked and sacrificed to make up for our faults and deficiencies so we can be worthy of what the Dalai Lama refers to as "indestructible happiness".


This also makes sense in that such a relationship assists in developing humility in place of arrogance and confidence in place of insecurity, which appear to be among the necessary changes in perception and attitude for seeing and accepting Buddha-nature (or one of the various other names given to this truth or realization). Through the process of learning to accept such a "gift", it seems to me we would be able to then learn to appreciate and recognize the same fundamental quality in others.

That is, often we just don't believe we really deserve to be truly, fundamentally happy, let alone think that we have the potential for such peace. So here is Nichiren, saying that Buddha-Nature, i.e. the Tenth world, is always with us. But for those who need to "do" something to focus or center themselves, he provides a mandala representing a key scene in the Lotus Sutra (i.e. the Gohonzon of Nichiren Buddhism) and encourages his followers to chant the title of the sutra. Which, as far as it goes, is really very much like other Buddhist traditions in some fundamental ways.

Let us not forget, though, we are still discussing 13th century Japan. Nichiren seemed to sincerely believe that the troubles facing the nation were due to false beliefs, and he states that the other Buddhist sects in Japan have become perverted and failed to maintain the true teachings of the Buddha as expressed in the Lotus Sutra. He engages in doctrinal debates using scripture quoting while pointing to the events of his day as the fulfilment of prophecy. Because he believes that the other Buddhist sects have lost their way, he rebukes their teachings and instructs his disciples to do the same, even going so far as to tell them not to be friendly with people who he feels are "slandering" the Dharma. While he does not advocate hating such people, he does think they need to be corrected and admonished as strongly as possible, a technique of propagation referred to as shakubuku. While acknowledging that the Lotus Sutra calls for shoju, or gentle persuasiveness, he writes that this softer technique isn't strong enough to work in the Japan of his day and primarily cites the Nirvana Sutra for the justification of more aggressive methods.

This legacy, both in terms of teaching and reflecting on principles like ichinen sanzen, the practice of chanting the name of the sutra, and the sometimes dismal view of other Buddhist traditions, is still found in contemporary schools of Nichiren Buddhism. On the one hand, some of the elements of exclusivism have probably helped preserve Nichiren Buddhism, but on the other hand, inflexibility in some areas may have retarded its growth and reception.

Dhamma-nating the conversation, part I: My Little Lit Review

I once referred to the goal of Nichiren Buddhism, referred to as kosen-rofu, as the aspiration for "world dhamma-nation". Other than being a really bad pun, it does reflect the two sides of the spirit of the concept as I have understood it. On the one hand is the idea of "one world under the Dharma" indicating that most people if not everyone will be converted to Buddhism, specifically, Nichiren Buddhism. The result is supposed to be world peace. On the other hand is the of "one world under the Dharma" indicating that whatever their professed or practiced religion or philosophy, if enough people understand the underlying principles of the Buddha-dharma, which are not exclusive to any one spiritual path, there will be peace in the world. These are obviously distinct views. This brief series of posts is a sketch of my ruminations on Nichiren Buddhism, but it is just an amateur view. I do not claim to be an experienced practitioner or serious student of this tradition, and I intend no offense.

My Little Lit Review

If you spend any time reading the Gosho, or letters and treatises attributed to the 13th century Japanese Buddhist monk who dubbed himself "Nichiren", you will find his writing can sometimes be abrasive. I recently read several selections from Selected Writing of Nichiren (1990) and Letters of Nichiren (1996), both by Burton Watson/Philip Yamplosky as I have had a general familiarity with the tradition but not with the fundamental documents of its founder. Even from such a quick reading, it is easy to see why so much controversy and conjecture can be generated by selectively quoting certain parts of Nichiren's writings. Generally I was struck by the presence of three themes:

1. Nichiren's insights into Mahayana Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra, including his own explanations or comparisons focusing (strictly) on the teachings themselves or the general implications of concepts such as ichinen sanzen in the personal lives of his followers/fellow practitioners.

2. Nichiren's application of these views to the religious, social, environmental, and political problems of his day, including the strict and aggressive refutation of what he perceived to be not only incorrect but dangerous views about Buddhism.

3. Nichiren's personal attitudes towards non-Buddhists and those whom he deemed to hold false or perverted views of the Dharma, including his instructions and advice to his followers/fellow practitioners on how to treat such people.

I don't think that quickly reading a few of Nichiren's letters qualifies me as an expert on the form of Buddhism that arose from his insights and writings, so I do submit the following as my own humble opinion...

It seems that someone looking at theme #2 might be struck by the idea that what Nichiren is describing sounds like superstition or magical thinking, especially the references to gods and protectors. Nichiren does not appear to think they are strictly metaphorical, and because in contemporary Western culture it is frequently assumed that something can only be "true" if it is literally true, then someone with such an attitude mythic imagery is "not true" and can tell us little of value. The idea that metaphors are vital in our understanding of reality is generally key to appreciating most religious writings. That is, they can open us to aspect or dimensions of our existence beyond the boundaries we typically confine ourselves to in our notions of "reality".

Someone in contemporary Western culture looking at theme #3 might be turned off by suggestions that anyone not practicing as Nichiren recommends will fall into hell, or that such people should be viewed and treated as inferior (as a nobleman might treat a lowly servant). The historical context of Nichiren's life in 13th century Japan can help us to understand much of this theme, but that doesn't have to excuse or justify all of it, unless one is assuming that Nichiren was perfect and not a human like the rest of us.

For example, if one examines the book and letters of Charles Darwin, one can find many erroneous ideas that would seem absurd today (for example he was a big proponent of "use-disuse" arguments, increasingly so as he got older, and anyone presenting his hereditary theory today would be laughed out of academia). One also finds that he presented many highly racist arguments in supporting ideas such as sexual selection in The Descent of Man. But of course he did, as he was a properly educated Victorian gentleman. This isn't Darwin-bashing, as I respect him a great deal. The point, if it isn't becoming clear, is that the principles of natural and sexual selection that Darwin proposed were adopted and tested and refined and have become major explanations of the distribution of biological variation, an important aspect of evolutionary theory. The several poor ideas he had as well as the many attitudes and beliefs he held that we might today find offensive are still a part of his contribution to history, but they are not incorporated into his contribution to our understanding of evolution.

In the same fashion, while themes #2 and #3 are essential to understanding Nichiren's life and the history of Nichiren Buddhism, it is questionable (to me at any rate) to what extent they are truly relevant to contemporary Buddhism. Must all of Nichiren's personal baggage always be attached to the principle(s) that he elucidated and contributed to the Buddhist study and practice? And if not, does that not make writings which reveal or clarify theme #1 primary? Sexual selection can be used to explain some aspects of biological variation whether or not Darwin himself also believed in use or disuse or saw some groups of humans as being less advanced. Even if it were revealed that Einstein was a serial killer, it wouldn't cause people to abandon his contribution to physics. So long as his ideas inspire physicists and are consistent with experimental evidence, they will be maintained. If one finds that the principles and practice(s) espoused by Nichiren (theme #1) are consistent with one's own experience and are beneficial, that would appear to me to be a separate issue from the the controversial aspects of theme #2 and theme #3, which are historical and personal aspects of the life of Nichiren.

I am not suggesting we ignore history or rewrite it however we prefer. To use the Darwin example, I am not a fan of "white-washing" his story just because he has become such an icon in evolutionary biology and science in general. Much of what he chose to study or write was influence by the times in which he lived. Then again, for people at a certain level of analysis, this is not really relevant, just the outcome of his contribution to science. This is the reason why I identified the three themes in the writing of Nichiren without using value-laden terminology implying judgment. Obviously he felt sincerely pained about the state of affairs in Japan - with all of the epidemics, natural disasters, and the imminent threat of invasion, it would have been to use Christian terminology a very Apocalyptic time. Certainly Nichiren's concern for Japan as well as for the Buddha-dharma, coupled with his belief that the nation has been abandoned by its protector deities, are primary factors driving him to to work so hard to study the sutras and to find the essence of the Buddha's enlightenment. So it is eminently relevant to explore that theme (#2) when asking questions such as "What drove Nichiren to study so hard and work so diligently?" On one level, we can say it was his compassionate desire to save others, in this case, the people of Japan. On another level, we can list the specific things he felt were putting the nation in peril. But if we are asking "What is the relevance of Nichiren's efforts today?", it seems to me that the former level of analysis is more relevant than the latter in as much as we are not living in 13th century Japan. That isn't intended as being flippant, it's just an illustration of where I was going with my previous comment. I suggest the same type of distinction can be made about theme #3 as well, and again, this does not require us to ignore or re-interpret history.

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."