The Psalms as mirror and inner voice

The Psalms are not my favorite example of sacred literature. I am just not a fan. My reaction to them was one of the red flags that kept me questioning my connection to mainstream Christianity. I simply do not find them comforting, empowering, or inspiring but I do tend to find them tiresome or offensive.

The Psalms in Hebrew and Latin. Manuscript on parchment, 12th century. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First, understand that I do appreciate that the Psalms are sacred poetry. I've read various books by Thomas Merton including three with a heavy emphasis on the Psalms (Contemplative Prayer, Praying the Psalms, Bread in the Wilderness), I've read Psalms: A Spiritual Commentary by Basil Pennington, I've read Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I've read The Cloister Walk by Kathleen Norris, Prayers from the Darkness: The Difficult Psalms by Lyn Fraser, and so on.

Second, I read these books while studying as a novice oblate with a Benedictine community and wrote reports examining and reflecting on them and the discussing my thoughts and reactions with a Benedictine to further delve into meaning and response. This was not casual reading.

Third, prior to and during the novitiate I regularly performed the Daily Office and chose a schedule for the readings which completed the Psalter once per month. I did this for over a year and a half. I am  familiar with the Psalms themselves.

My relationship to the Psalms then isn't based on a casual acquaintance, nor is it based on a fundamentalist or literalist mindset. I realize that there are cultural and historical differences with the writers of the Psalms and today's readers of these ancient poems, and that poems are not to be read as prescriptive theology. Yet I am still not fond of them and don't connect with them.

And now I'm going to suggest what value they can possess for anyone on a spiritual path, whether or not they identify with the Bible or the Abrahamic religions.

God is Dharma (the law of God)

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.

One can find many nuances in the term Dharma and how it is used in Eastern thought. It has been described or defined as the teachings of the Buddha, a comforter or protector of those who follow the teachings of the Buddha, and as the fundamental axioms of reality which give rise to karma (cause and effect) and illuminate the nature of emptiness through the interdependence, no-self, and impermanence. And this isn't an exhaustive list.

But it is revealing.

The Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition speaks of the law of God. This is sometimes misunderstood as short-hand for one of formulations of the Ten Commandments, or the various rules and admonitions found in Leviticus, or something along those lines. Yet the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel of Jesus affirm that this is not so. Even the summary Jesus gives of these rules and commandments--love God and your neighbor as yourself--is only a reflection of this deeper law of God. Or perhaps more accurately, a reflection of how to come to actually know the law of God.

I mean, after all, if God's law was something so straightforward, you might expect the Bible to be much shorter and simpler. Yet the law of God is simple and elusive. It cannot be defined in words, and can only be pointed at or hinted at through narratives. This will sound familiar to many Buddhists, with the rules and stories of the Bible pointing to the law just as the finger points to the moon. We mustn't make the mistake, as unfortunately so many have, of mistaking the finger for the moon. Or in this case, rules and commandment for the law of God.

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?