Depend on the meaning and not the words.
In his blog on March 30th our own Revered Greg wrote “Evolve or perish….” I couldn’t agree more.
Some branches of Christianity seem to be beginning to realize that their core doctrines must evolve or they will perish. The more thoughtful among them realize that thinking people in the modern age no longer buy into the myths of virgin birth, the ark, or someone else being able to purify their lives by dying for their sins, and, we have a more educated view of what exists up and down “there”. But I have to concede, they were right about the fire below.
All of so-called Nichiren Buddhism might benefit from the Reverend’s guidance, “Evolve or perish…. “
I have been of the opinion for the last dozen or more years that so-called Nichiren Buddhism needs to evolve or it will perish.
There is an old movie, a comedy starring Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn. In one scene the comedic actor finds himself hanging by one hand several stories above the pavement clinging to a collapsing lanai. His character, realizing the predicament that he is in, dons a desperate expression and says, “Namumyohorengekyo, Namumyohorengekyo, Namumyohorengekyo…” Abracadabra!
Some might ask, “Did it work?” Some would claim that it did, and it is impossible to prove that it did not; Steve Martin lived to make more movies. Abracadabra! Alakazam! One thing is certain; the writer of this movie’s script has listened to a garden variety SGI discussion meeting’s definition and explanation of chanting Namumyohorengekyo.
We use words as an expedient to make distinctions in an effort to convey concepts, and special words to make distinctions within distinctions. If I said “furry animal”, how would you know that I was referring to a dog? If I said “dog”, you would know it was a furry animal but would you know it was a German Shepard? If I said “German Shepard” you might know it was a furry animal and a dog, but how could you know that it was black and tan, it’s gender, or that it was just a puppy six weeks old? No, you could not.
What if I just said “Abracadabra”? What if I said “Namumyohorengekyo”? Would you know exactly what I mean? I doubt it.
Consider the word fantastic. It was once a word used to describe events or circumstances that where so extreme as to challenge belief. Over the years it has been put to common usage to describe just about everything. There is even a cleaning product that carries the name. A clever marketing ploy, but a name that it can never live up to. A product that removes sticky fingerprints from my refrigerator is not so extreme as to challenge belief. I have never had a cup of coffee that was so extreme as to challenge belief, but at times I have said so. There is no longer anything fantastic about the use of the word fantastic. In a real sense, while its definition remains, because of improper and over use of the word itself, it no longer brings to mind the concept that it was intended to convey.
Do all Buddhas throughout time and space pronounce the Sino-Japanese words Namumyohorengekyo? It is doubtful, but I have no doubt that all Buddhas throughout time and space depend on the meaning. And, I am fairly certain, they are not thinking, “Devotion to the Mystic Law of cause and effect through the sound of my voice”. But then again, years ago we all heard from reliable sources from within the SGI, at least those of us with strong faith, that scientists had pointed the most powerful microphone ever made out into space (or was it toward the Aurora Borealis?) and what they heard was a seven-beat pulsation that sounded like Na-mu-myo-ho-ren-ge-kyo. Abracadabra! The Buddhas throughout time and space do speak Japanese.
The phrase “Depend on the meaning and not the words” teaches us in part that the form and phonic sound of language isn’t as important as the ability of the words used to convey the intended meaning. As with the case of the word fantastic, when a word or concept is attributed to many usages and definitions that were never intended, its meaning has become bastardized, reduced to a cliché. While it’s intended meaning does not change, no one pays it much attention, and there are many that hold distorted views of its meaning.
Which brings me back to Abracadabra! a.k.a., Namumyohorengekyo and “Evolve or perish…. “ . While the meaning of Namumyohorengekyo remains, it has become a cliché, and those that hold distorted views of its meaning write movies, expound false doctrines, and further denigrate the meaning. The magic of words is found in convention and agreement of the meaning that they convey. When a word no longer conveys it’s meaning it’s magic is lost.
Nichiren wrote, “ The supreme principle [that is the Mystic Law] was originally without a name. When the sage was observing the principle and assigning names to all things, he perceived that there is this wonderful single Law [myoho] which simultaneously possesses both cause and effect [renge], and he named it Myoho-renge. This single Law that is Myoho-renge encompasses within it all the phenomena comprising the Ten Worlds and the three thousand realms, and is lacking in none of them. Anyone who practices this Law will obtain both the cause and the effect of Buddhahood simultaneously.”
The given name of a concept or thing is arbitrary. Someone perceives a concept, or makes a discovery, then arbitrarily gives it a name. The meaning of the word created exists by convention and agreement. If there is no agreement on the meaning of a word, or it becomes distorted or confused, the convention is broken. When this happens the words themselves must “Evolve or” the ability for them to convey their intended distinctions will “ perish…. “
This passage continues, “The sage practiced with this Law as his teacher and attained enlightenment, and therefore he simultaneously obtained both the mystic cause and the mystic effect of Buddhahood, becoming the Thus Come One of perfect enlightenment and fully realized virtues.
Thus the Great Teacher Dengyo writes: "A single mind, the entity of Myoho-renge, simultaneously brings to maturity both the blossom of cause and the calyx of effect. The three cycles of preaching that the Buddha employed each contain both the lotus that is the entity and the lotus that is a metaphor. The Lotus Sutra as a whole consists of both entity and metaphor. In particular we may note the seven parables, the three equalities and the ten peerlessnesses, which each contain the lotus of the entity. And the teaching that fully sets forth this principle is called Myoho-renge-kyo,"
Even here there exists an evolution from Myoho-renge to Myoho-renge- kyo . This evolution, is similar to the evolution of distinctions from fury animal to dog, from dog to German Shepard, to the distinction of a specific black and tan puppy that is six weeks old. The evolution is from the general to the specific—from myoho and renge to myoho-renge, then from myoho-renge to myohorenge-kyo, and Nichiren’s accomplishment of adding namu and the evolution to Namumyohorengekyo.
In another writing Nichiren offers a definition of Myohorengekyo that is in keeping with the passages above:
The Jigage section of the chapter states, ‘...single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, not hesitating even if it costs them their lives...’ I, Nichiren, have called forth Buddhahood from within my life by living this sentence. This means that I myself embodied the Three Great Secret Laws, or the reality of the three thousand realms in a single moment of life, implied in the Juryo chapter. But let us keep this to ourselves!
Dengyo, the Great Teacher of Mount Hiei, journeyed to China to receive instruction in the profound meaning of this sentence from the sutra. ‘Single’ of ‘single-mindedly’ means the one pure way, and ‘mind’ indicates all phenomena and existences. The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai explained the Chinese character for ‘mind’ by saying that it consists of four brush strokes representing the moon and three stars and implies that the mind that resides in the effect [of Buddhahood] is pure and clean. My interpretation of the passage is that ‘single’ stands for myo, ‘mind’ for ho, ‘desiring’ for ren , ‘see’ for ge, and ‘Buddha’ for kyo (sutra).
My own interpretation is that myohorenge is the fundamental and eternally constant Law that reigns over all that repeats the eternal cycle of birth and death and kyo of Myohorengekyo is the mind of Buddha that is one with myohorenge.
Nichiren is reported as stating, ”In addition, all the sutras expounded by the seven Buddhas of the past, the thousand Buddhas, or the Buddhas of countless aeons ago, as well as those expounded by the Buddhas presently living in the ten directions, are all followers of the single character kyo of the Lotus Sutra.“
To restate, myohorenge is the Sovereign Law reigning over all of life’s objective realities, and kyo represents The Buddha Law, the subjective reality attained by all Buddhas that is one with the objective truth of myohorenge .
“Evolve or perish…. “
When I say, Namumyohorengekyo what I mean is Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo, so I chant Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo with single-minded resolve to manifest in my actions the wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment. The Sovereign Law, myohorenge, and the Buddha Law, myojisoku, are expressed as the autonomous self-practice established by the Buddha among men, and while on first hearing this great law, you may not understand it’s meaning, it is no longer associated with the cliché “Namumyohorengekyo” and “Abracadabra!”
“Evolve or perish…. “
chikushonin 智倶諸人
大求道心,妙覚,命時僧倶經.
A great seeking mind, mystically awakened, Buddhahood as manifest reality.
南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo
An old SGI acquaintance. Works for one of my subcontractors. First day on the job he says, “ I know I know you from somewhere. How long have you worked for this company?” I said, “ About a year.” “That’s not it then. But, I know I know you from somewhere.”
A week passes. “Where did you work before?” I told him. He says, “Well, I don’t know where, but it sure seems like I know you.”
Another week passes. Today I asked, “Dave, have you figured out the connection yet?” “No” he says, “Do you always run the jobs?” “Yes” I said.
Then I asked, “Do you have any religious affiliations?” He looks embarrassed. I ask again, “Do you have any religious affiliations?” “Well, yes. Yes I do.” There is an awkward silence. I ask, "Well?… What is it?”
“I’m Buddhist,” he answers with a tentative look on his face, waiting for my reaction. “That’s it then” I said.
The concerned gaze turns to a warm smile as he asks, “What district or chapter are you in?” “I haven’t been for about twelve years”. Big smile, “It has really, really, changed!”
“Yeah, I have been keeping track. It’s like an old Ford pick-up with a new paint job. Cleaned up, but still in need of an oil change and new shock absorbers.”
Oh, well. He’ll be back in a week or so. We’ll talk again.
A friend wrote:
"Right now I'm looking for Gosho other than the one I just posted
that might justify fujufuse towards other Nichiren groups. I can't
find any. But I can find Gosho that indicate that when we criticize
each other for slandering the law we'd better be on firm ground or we
are committing slander -- true or false [?]"
True. But I don't see that as an inherent problem. To me fujufuse is
a common sense teaching to avoid complicity in slander. Seen in this
light, where in the Gosho is it not supported? Does it matter if is
supported by the Gosho? I think not. The inherent problem is that
fujufuse is applied in Sectarian way, rather than universally, and
this problem is addressed quite well in the article by Raffaella Di
Marzio:
http://web.tiscali.it/noredirecttiscali/grisroma/inglese/Cesnur_part3.htm
"I was sorry to see how, at times, tolerance towards others is often
missing in those very people who claim it loudly every day as an
unalienable right for their own group."
I see a prime example of this Sectarian attitude in a statement made
recently by a top level Lay Leader of Nichiren Shu in response to the
article referenced above:
"Italy has been a thorn in the SGI's side for a while now. While
they have a secure toehold there, they have lost a large number of
members to the Nichiren Shu over the past few years and have
engaged in the usual chicanery, pitting husband against wife, friend
against friend etc. Some truly unkind and untrue comments have been
made about Rev. Tarabini and the Nichiren Shu as well. Despite all
this and indeed perhaps because of it, they have continued to
hemorrhage members and the Nichiren Shu continues to grow."
Should any of us present or past SGI members think that this is proof
that this practitioner of Nichiren Shu is seizing the opportunity to
slander the SGI and Hail the greatness of Nichiren Shu, you are
right. At the same time, if we fail to acknowledge that a similar
statement is close at hand from the SGI towards Nichiren Shu (and
others), then we are party to the fault that fuels these sectarian
battles. As Raffaella Di Marzio comments below:
"This author has often been forced to see how any dialogue with
many of these groups is impossible, since those who belong to them
are utterly unwilling to do any form of "self-criticism."
"Dialogue in these movements means giving in to the "adversaries",
admitting the "defects" of the group means undermining their
cohesion, disputing the perfection of the leadership means destroying
the certitude of those who belong to them."
While Raffaella's commentary specifically addresses both the SGI and
non-Buddhist religious movements alike, I feel that it succinctly
addresses the character flaw in the natures of most Human Beings that causes Sectarianism to flourish.
I think those of us that have been involved with trying to discuss
the validity of the doctrines of our respective schools, within our
own schools, be it SGI, Nichiren Shu, or others, we know that we hit
a stone wall when it comes to challenging the doctrine of our
schools.
Sectarians, if they are not completely confident that they
will prevail, or find themselves cornered with a difficult question,
they will refuse any further discussion - if in fact one was ever
permitted. No wonder dialogue between different schools is so
difficult - if we refuse to self-reflect among our selves, how can we
imagine the possible merits of being corrected by perceived 'others'?
Truly, the overturned cart on the road serves as a warning to the one
that follows.
Between Nichiren Shu, who's committee of Priests determine
interpretation of doctrine and say that you are welcome to join
them, and 'Gassho' if you choose not to, but, if you do not accept
their doctrines you cannot be an associated Temple or Sangha; the
Nichiren Shoshu who invests sole doctrinal discretion in the body of
the current High Priest and demands its believers follow Him; or the
SGI who shuns or drives it's members away if they don't play 'Follow
the Leader', I will ask, what is the difference?
I would say that essentially there is no difference - some just put
on a friendlier face than others.
A clear example of this (lack of a common standard) is apparent and
reflected in the current American debate regarding the diminishment
of Civil Liberties and Rights to Privacy since the event known as
9/11. Those on the side that say that safety is more important than
personal freedoms and privacy will rationalize and state, "We still
have more freedom and personal rights than any other country in the
World." Setting aside the question of whether (or not) this is true,
the entire line of reasoning is beside the point. In the United
States our standard for comparison is our Constitution - not the
workings of other nation states.
In the same way, just as we, as Americans, should up-hold the
Constitution as our standard in secular affairs, as Buddhists, our
standard should be the Wisdom Embracing all Species, not 'The
Teachings of Our School'.
The Nirvana Sutra holds up the often quoted so-called 'Four
Standards': (1) to follow the teaching, not persons; (2) to follow
the meaning of the teaching, not the words; (3) to follow true
wisdom, not ordinary people's understanding [knowledge]; and (4) to
follow sutras which are complete and final and not to rely on
provisional sutras.
Disagreement by nature means that we are not of the same mind. On
the nature of minds, Nichiren had this to say:
"All the various beings in the nine worlds and the six paths differ
from one another in their minds."
Is this not precisely the reason that Sectarian disputes exit? We
cannot agree on a standard because our minds differ. If we were of
the same mind Sectarian disputes could not exist - but we can't agree
because our minds all differ.
In other words, the problem is not that we do not agree on a standard
for settling Sectarian disputes, the problem is that Sectarian
disputes arise from that nature of our minds; Because our minds
differ, we cannot agree. This is why another seven-hundred years of
Sectarian debate will not bring an end to Sectarian squabbles.
At the same time, isn't Nichiren teaching us here that true unity
exists only in awakening the mind of the Buddha? Now, this raises the
question, "Do we need to agree to common standard to awaken the
mind of the Buddha?"
Nichiren upheld the standard that embraces all beings as the Lotus
Sutra, which he states is the standard set by the sutras themselves.
I uphold that the Lotus Sutra sets the standard of embracing a
single 'four-line verse'. The Lotus Sutra states this as follows:
"Constellation King Flower, if there are those have made up their
minds and wish to gain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, they would do
well to burn a finger or one toe of their foot as an offering to the
Buddha towers. It is better than offering one's realm and cities,
wife and children, or the mountains, forests, Rivers, and lakes in
the 'lands of thousand-million-fold world, or all their precious
treasures. even if a person were to fill the whole thousand-millionfold
world with the seven treasures as an offering to the Buddha and
the great bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas and arhats, the benefits
gained by such a person cannot match those gained by accepting and
upholding this Lotus Sutra, even just one four-line verse of it! The
latter brings the most numerous blessings of all."
In my reading of the Lotus Sutra, it is clear which four-line verse
this is:
"When they have become truly faithful
"Honest, upright, gentle in intent
"Singlemindedly yearning to see the Buddha
"Not begrudging their lives to do so"
And what are the "most numerous blessings of all" that are brought?
They are expressed in the next two lines of verse:
"Then [in this present moment] I and the assembly of Monks
"Appear/together on Eagle Peak"
Fortunately for all, we don't have to agree on this standard to
achieve this standard. It inherently possesses the power to influence
all living beings, to awaken the Wisdom Embracing All Species, the
wisdom unifying all people.
Inherent in this six-line verse are the Three Great Secret Laws.
Sincerely, chikushonin.智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myogaku, myojisokukyo.
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo. 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
(This article first appeared on BuddhaJones.com)