Chanting to the Gohonzon and praying the Psalms

Español: Este es un Gohonzon inscripto por el mismo Nichieren en 1280 para su discipulo Nissho; etse estilo de Gohonzon es llamado Ichinen Sanzen Gohonzon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yes.

So now that I've confirmed you read the title correctly, here is a quote from an article by Sandy McIntosh titled "As American As Apple Pie?" that appeared in a 1992 in the Winter 1992 issue of Tricycle magazine:

The liturgy of gongyo encourages one to clear the mind of wishes, anxieties, and other distracting thoughts so that when it is time to chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (the most important part of the practice) the mind will be sufficiently stilled to concentrate on the Gohonzon. The goal of this "assiduous practice" is the fusion of one's mind with the reality of the Gohonzon—it means reading the Chinese characters not simply with one's eyes but "with one's life"—through chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

 ...

I had friends who started off chanting for cheaper drugs and free money. Like them, I treated the Gohonzon as a pimp. I wanted to see if chanting would work. I set about praying for things (a summer job, a girlfriend, even a good parking spot) that would fill immediate needs or give instant pleasure. Some things I got; others I didn't. The things I really needed-such as better relationships with people and with myself-eluded me. Nevertheless, I continued to chant. Gradually, my interest in shortterm material benefits was displaced by a hunger for longerterm spiritual ones. I found that chanting incessantly about difficult personal problems, like polishing a mirror, brought clarity to my situation. The more difficult or painful the motivation for my chanting, the clearer the mirror of my faith reflected my ownership of whatever troubled me. I could no longer deny the responsibility for my predicaments. In my experience, the activity of chanting for material or spiritual things becomes a process of cleansing one's spirit, not corrupting it; and Buddhists who began by chanting for hotter cars ended up driven to awaken themselves and help others, at times with great energy and joy. 

This was published not long after the bitter split between Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai, so it is relevant to the perspectives of people in both camps at that time. The whole "chanting for stuff" issue has been debated many times in various venues and forums, with the above as an example of a pro-chanting for stuff argument that has been developed and polished over the years. It is akin to petitionary prayer in theism.

The point of similarity I wish to make between that and chanting or singing or just reading the Psalms as prayer early in the Daily or Divine Office is one of clearing the air, getting out what is most distracting you by way of engendering fear, anger, lust, or despair. I think the Psalms, along with prayers for specific personalized petitions, might serve a function similar to what McIntosh and others have described. You pour out your heart to make room the the divine, whether that is conceptualized as God or Buddha-nature or the Buddha-dharma (rendered in Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai as the "Mystic Law").

I would not be surprised to find parallels in other forms of Buddhism or in non-Buddhist traditions. I suppose it does make a certain kind of sense. One problem I have with the Psalms though is that they may not really reflect the state I am in and therefore not really act as a way to clarify it. I suppose it could be seen as a way to practice sympathy and solidarity with others, although as I understand it that is not the point of praying them, but really it just makes me bored, sad, irritated, or judgmental.

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

Clinging to spiritual cynicism

What does the term 'spiritual cynicism' suggest to you? Please consider it because I suspect it is a common affliction of those struggling through modernism or lost in the post-modernist correction. I have mentioned before my interest in honoring much of what was thrown out along with the bathwater in the modernist reaction to traditionalism and my view that post-modernism is useful as reflexive exercise rather than as an (in)coherent philosophy. I have discussed getting over old stereotypes, and appreciating views I may have previously been too dismissive toward, including the hang-ups expressed in the atheist vs. theist debates. I have even accepted there is much of value in traditional Abrahamic views and practices concerning the Divine, and have developed an affection for and sympathy toward the more liturgical/sacramental forms of Christianity. On the Buddhist side, ironically, I have realized that many of the lessons weaving through Buddhist thought that I have explored over the last several years, as well as my interest in practice and expression, are synchronized very well in some of the writings of the current and former Presidents of Soka Gakkai. This is particularly astounding considering that some of that organizations materials materials have at times appeared overly simplistic or smacked of selective interpretation and bias (although that can be said of all forms of Buddhism to some degree, and the question of authenticity is as much at times about 'Does it work?' as 'Who said it and when?'). I had for a long while been something of a snob towards the Soka Gakkai, but honestly after my attempts to appreciate various Buddhist traditions and practices with the heart as well as the mind, I was shocked that when I read Unlocking the Secrets of Birth and Death again this year it actually seemed really clear and astute (and this is said with nothing against other forms of Buddhism at all). As Charlie Brown might say, "Good grief."

But here's the problem - I am not convicted. I can make a cogent argument for joining an organization such as SGI* and adopting their idea of Buddhist practice and I can make a cogent argument for doing the same with a Christian group. I have been making the argument to myself for years. It is sufficient now to permit me to say I have done my due diligence in investigating the historical, philosophical, moral/ethical, social/political, practical, and metaphysical aspects of Buddhism and Christianity to enable me to confidently make a commitment to one or the other. To do, not merely say. To live, not merely think. It makes sufficient sense and there is sufficient benefit, not just for myself but for others, in fully engaging such a path. It makes sense on nearly every level. Except that I just don't buy it. Or to be more accurate, I don't fully buy it. I just don't seem to have enough - something - to make it work. I tried for a while with a Buddhist group that wasn't too far away from where I was living a few years ago, but it didn't last when I moved.

Now don't misunderstand me. I am not looking for huge spiritual consolations, or absolute certainties, or mountain-top experiences. I am not limiting myself to a narrow band of distracting or false expectations.

Maybe it's the whole purpose/meaning deal. I have a great theory of purpose which is backed up by religion and some schools of philosophy. It's not lacking in being convincing on a general level. I guess it's me. I guess I see all of this as being true for other people, being possible for other people, but not for me.

To quote Chuck once more, "I can't stand it. I just can't stand it."

For crying out loud, I'm the Charlie Brown of faith.




(Note: Yes, I am also aware of reasons some give to be cautious regarding SGI specifically, relating to concerns about how some parts of the organization have been run and the complaints of former members. But getting into that stuff is waaaay off point.)

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?

American Buddhists

Most American Buddhists are Asian immigrants or the descendants of Asian immigrants, but what about the converts? And what is the general overall picture of Buddhism in the US?

Here are some numbers from The New Buddhism by James Coleman (as opposed to the book by David Brazier) as cited in "Buddhadharma" magazine--

When asked about their family's religious background, 8.6 percent said it was nonreligious, 16.5 percent Jewish, 25.6 percent Roman Catholic, 42.2 percent Protestant, and 1.9 percent Buddhist. A comparison of these findings with the demographic of the entire U.S. population confirms that the often made observation than Jews--who make up only 3 percent of the total population of the United States but more than five times the percentage of my respondents--are more likely to be attracted to Buddhism than other Americans. My survey did not, however, support the common belief that people with a Catholic background are also more likely to become involved with Buddhism. The percentage of Buddhists from a Catholic family was virtually identical with the overall percentage of Catholics in the American population. Those with Protestant backgrounds, on the other hand, appear less likely to get involved. Whereas they made up 42 percent of my respondents, they constitute 56 percent of the total American population. My data clearly indicate that American Buddhism appeals most strongly to the middle and upper-middle class--another fact that is generally recognized in the Buddhist community. About a third of the respondents reported their family income to be between $30,000 and $60,000, while another 19 percent fell in the $60,000 to $90,000 range. About 20 percent of the respondents had incomes over $90,000 and about 30 percent fell on the other end of the spectrum, making less than $30,000. Although these income figures were somewhat higher than the national average at the time the survey was conducted, the education level of American Buddhists was right off the charts. Of the 353 people who responded to the question on educational achievement, only a single person reported having failed to finish high school, and less than one in twenty said that their education stopped with high school graduation. Eleven percent said they had some college, 32 percent were college graduates, and surprisingly, more than hald of the respondents (51 percent) had advanced degrees. Thus it may be that the participants in the new Buddhism represent the most highly educated group in the West today. Just as these Buddhists are far more educated than the average American, they are far more liberal as well. Almost 60 percent of the respondents said they were Democrats, while only 2.6 percent reported a Reublican affiliation. Surprisingly, the Republicans were outnumbered by the members of the tiny Green Party by more than three to one (the Greens were 9.9 percent of the total sample). A self-ranking on a left-to-right political scale also produced a distribution heavily skewed to the left. On a one to ten scale, with one being the furthest right and ten the furthest left, the average respondent ranked him- or herself as an eight.

I haven't had a chance to read the book, but I would wonder how the following numbers would look--what percentage are affiliated with a more congregational practice and a group with a nationwide set of affiliated sanghas like the Buddhist Churches of America or Soka Gakkai? How does the distribution look for different types of Buddhism (Nichiren, Pure Land, Zen, Vipassana, Tibetan, etc.)? How does race and income correlate to type of Buddhism and congregational versus more individualistic/less formal sanghas? To what degree does being a current college student as opposed to being in a lower-paying full-time job account for the chunk of people who are in the under 30K per annum bracket? It would also be interesting to look at familial religious background on a scale of more conservative/fundamentalist to more moderate to more open/liberal as well as by Protestant denomination.