Greatly deluded within realization

Those who have great realization about delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded within realization are sentient beings.

-Dogen, "Flowers Fall"

This reminds me of something I once read (again). Basically, a student asked (paraphrasing): People seek rebirth in the Pure Land so they can be sure to attain enlightenment, but if the Pure Land isn't a literal place and is instead symbolic, then why not just go straight for enlightenment? Why seek to literally be reborn in an imaginary/metaphorical place? Here is part of the reply...

In truth, all the pure and impure lands in the ten directions are like dreams and illusions; however, only when we have attained the “Illusion-like Samadhi” can we see them as illusory and false. If we have not yet reached that stage, we will still see them as real, we are still subject to their sway, we will still know sorrow and happiness, we still feel uncomfortable during the summer heat and are even bothered by such small things as mosquito and ant bites. Thus, how can we speak about things being illusory? We should realize that the Pure Land method is a wonderful expedient of the Buddha, borrowing an illusory realm of happiness to help being escape from an illusory realm of great suffering, full of obstructing conditions and dangers. Them, from that happy, peaceful, illusory realm, cultivation progresses easily and the ever-silent realm of the True Mind is swiftly attained...


One more point to bear in mind: if we speak about the Truth of Emptiness without having attained that stage (or at least reached a certain level of achievement in our practice) we certainly cannot convert others but will only end up in useless arguments and disputes. (pp. 152)


Of the two types of attachments, to existence and to emptiness, the latter is very dangerous. Both the Lankavatara and the Esoteric Adornment Sutra state:


"It is better to be attached to existence, though attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to emptiness, though attachment may be as small as a mustard seed.”




Attachment to “existence” leads to mindfulness of cause and effect, wariness of transgressions and fear of breaking the precepts, as well as to Buddha and sutra recitation and performance of good deeds. Although these actions are bound to forms and not free and liberated, they are all conducive to merits, virtues, and good roots. On the other hand, if we are attached to emptiness without having attained True Emptiness, but refuse to follow forms and cultivate merits and virtues, we will certainly sink into the cycle of birth and death. (pp.153-154)


-excerpted from the comments of Master Thich Thien Tam in Pure Land Buddhism: Dialogues with Ancient Masters (from the section "Doubts & Questions about Pure Land")

In other words, it is one thing to start a practice believing literally in the metaphors and symbols (represented here as attachment to "existence"), and after long practice, come to move beyond the dichotomy of literal/symbolic based on having realized the Truth being pointed to in the tradition (represented here as attaining True Emptiness). But to just start saying "Oh, these are all just clever systems pointing to X", without ever having developed any genuine sense or appreciation of X beyond a dry and abstract conceptual level, you will then be "too clever" to really do the practices with sincerity, especially those where you need to "buy into" the imagery or the story (this cleverness represented here as attachment to "emptiness"). Hence you are actually #$^@* out of luck and would have been better off just believing in the literal view.

I am also reminded of other things I have read, such as this from a Zen-based group known as the Buddhist Society for Compassionate Wisdom....

1. All sentient beings are buddhas.


2. Samsara is Nirvana.


3. One's passions are enlightenment.


4. We are an interrelated whole.


5. Everyday life is the Way.

Number #3 is particularly relevant and reminiscent of the teachings of the SGI, particularly long-time President Ikeda's views. Which in turn reminds me of sayings like these...

"Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form" -Heart Sutra "Each form, each particle, is a Buddha. One form is all Buddhas. All forms, all particles, are all Buddhas. All forms, sounds, scents, feelings, and phenomena are also like this, each filling all fields." -Pai-chang"Ultimately, all phenomena are contained within one's life, down to the last particle of dust. The nine mountains and the eight seas are encompassed by one's body; the sun, moon and myriad stars are contained within one's mind." -Nichiren "Each Buddha-Tathagata, as the body of the Dharmadhatu, pervades the mind of all sentient beings. This is why when your mind perceives the Buddha, it is your mind that possesses the thirty-two prominent features and the eighty secondary attributes. This mind that creates the Buddha is the mind that is the Buddha, and the wisdom of the Buddhas true, universal and ocean-like arises from this mind. This is why you should single-mindedly fix your thoughts and contemplatively examine that Buddha, that tathagata, that Arhat, that Supremely Awakened One." -The Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Immeasurable Life "You have always been one with the Buddha, so do not pretend you can ATTAIN to this oneness by various practices." -Huang Po "Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana" -Platform Sutra of Hui Neng "Happy is one who knows samsara and nirvana are not two." - Milarepa "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 "At this moment, is there anything lacking? Nirvana is right here now before our eyes. This place is the lotus land. This body now is the Buddha." -Hakuin "The Way does not require cultivation, just don't pollute it." -Chan ancestor Mazu

Celebrities and Soka Gakkai

Have you noticed the reports of celebrities who are taking up Buddhism? Have you noticed that several of them are in some way affiliated with Soka Gakkai? (There are exceptions - Richard Gere is more interested in Tibetan Buddhism.) Have you noticed that the ones that do tend to be in the music industry? If you haven't, it may be because you are not interested in celebrity or you are not interested in Buddhism, but it has caught my attention. Herbie Hancock has been practicing Buddhism with the Soka Gakkai for many years, as has Tina Turner, who even demonstrated what may be a portion of the Gongyo recitation from the Lotus Sutra on Larry King's show a few years ago. I am not a big celebrity fan, but when I hear about some star taking up Buddhism, it peaks my interest. More recently the list has included Orlando Bloom, Courtney Love, and now, Amy Winehouse.

Then again, a lot of Hollywood types have converted to Scientology.

Scientology is controversial in part because it was founded on the writings of a science fiction writer, and critics have suggested its claims and methods are, to be charitable, very questionable. The stereotype of Hollywood celebrities as shallow and vain individuals who want to appear to have depth of intellect and social conscience, which is unflattering to say the least, has cast its shadow over the popularity of Scientology among such a crowd. Warranted or not, this has helped fuel the lampooning of the movement. Similarly, critics of Soka Gakkai have accused it of becoming a cult of personality centered around its current President, Daisaku Ikeda. The celebrity appeal of the Soka Gakkai, though smaller than that of Scientology, can in a perverse way cast a similarly disparaging cynical glow over that organization.

Is that fair? No.

Whatever faults Soka Gakkai may have, the fact that people with celebrity have been introduced to their practice isn't relevant. But it certainly makes for an easy target. Perhaps the next question should be - when will Soka Gakkai be featured on South Park?

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?

Very concise post on metta, Buddism, and other faiths

I recently stumbled across a blog by a Nichiren Shu minister. After getting up, I read a little. It's very good. Of course, you only have your evaluation of my subjective preferences to know what exactly that means, so here's a sample of a recent posting...

Does one need to be a Buddhist to go beyond the affect of loving-kindness to direct insight into the true nature of phenomena? Apparently not according to Buddhism because the private-buddhas and bodhisattvas are not necessarily Buddhist when they do so. However, I do believe that the method the Buddha described in terms of right concentration and right mindfulness (and the eightfold path in general) do need to be followed whether one does them as a self-conscious practice or just happens to follow through on that way of living, whether one calls them Buddhism or not. I think the eightfold path is like the law of gravity - that is the way spiritual maturity works. The Buddha taught it clearly and explicitly, but that does not mean a Calvinist or an Orthodox Jew or a Sufi or a secular humanist or whoever might not follow such a procedure either knowing or not-knowing that the Buddha taught it. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya the Buddha specifically states that only those who follow the eightfold path will become liberated. To me, this is not sectarianism but merely the stating of a scientific principle. Gravity works whether you've heard of Newton or not.

Rev. Ryuei's Blah Blah Blaaaggghhh

It's well worth reading the whole thing. Just mind the bandwidth - if the site is down try again later. Oh yeah, this post on the Ten Vows of Universal Worthy/Virtue (from the Flower Garland Sutra?) is really good too. Click and read, my friends, click and read. If you liked those, here are a few others I fished out, especially if you have little experience with Nichiren Buddhism or it has come only through groups like SGI (no offense to that organization, by the way):

• Objectless Meditation and Odaimoku-Answering the objection(s) that only silent practice focusing on increasing concentration can lead to a nonconceptual awareness, and that this is the sum of enlightenment.
• Other-power, self-power, and the Death of God in the Poseidon Adventure-recognition that the seeming dichotomy between Zen as self-power and Shin as other-power is simplistic and misleading and how Nichiren Buddhism fits into this scheme.
• Four Stages of Faith and Five Stages of Practice, and a note on Sudden Enlightenment/Gradual Practice-dispelling the notion that Nichiren Buddhism doesn't include elements of Buddhism such as the Eighfold Path or the Six Paramitas and clarifies them in terms of Nicheren's views on the Lotus Sutra.
• Ethics and the Ten Worlds-similar theme as above, but applying the precepts to the notion of the Ten Worlds popularized by Nichiren Buddhism.
• Odaimoku as our Primary Practice-interesting as it relays some interesting views on the meaning and purpose of the Odaimoku that may surprise those who have heard of the phrase being practically idolized and enshrined in linguistic innerancy.
• The Real Gohonzon-as above, if your view of Nichiren Buddhism comes from pamphlets or superficial teachings, you might be surprised to read this piece, in particular the references to Shin and Zen.
• Reexamining the Four Admontions-on a roll here, addressing another aspect of Nichiren Buddhism that other Buddhist bristle at, is the condemnation of other traditions (particularly those in Japan); again, a more nuanced view that gives a historical perspective and also highlights that what is being criticized isn't typical of all the people in the other traditions at all times.