The subject of "Zuiho Bini" or teaching the law within the language of the people one dwells among has been much on my mind lately. The reason is that the more I research the origins of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the more I feel that those religions have their problems for some of the same reasons that Buddhists have problems. In other words, rather than arrogantly assuming that Buddhism has all the answers, that the various religions are wrong, I'm coming to realize that I've had things backwards and the various religions are wrong and right to the extent that my own spiritual development is wrong or right.
The key is to realize that the principle of upaya; talked about in the Lotus Sutra is talking at an esoteric level about esotericism. Nichiren also talked extensively and critically about esotericism, but then I realized he also used the methods and conventions of esotericism. This led me to think there might be an appropriate kind of esotericism.
This in turn led me to look at what esotericism is supposed to be about. Esotericism is the teaching of secrets. They are kept secret for a number of reasons, but when esotericism is appropriate, the reason for keeping "secrets" is simply that people won't "get" the message if one reveals it. That is probably what half the folks reading this paragraph are thinking. "What the hell is this guy saying?" But if you feel that way about something in an esoteric religious teaching, that is probably why that religious teaching is esoteric. Once one gets that "ah-ha" moment, the teaching isn't so esoteric anymore. Well when one masters what one is supposed to know, then many times people find that what one had been taught before was only part of the reality.
For instance, folks like me learn simple disciplines and teachings like "Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so..."
Then some of us find out that Jesus is semi-mythical and that the bible is a compendium of rewritten works of myth, legend, fiction and a little history; all passed down orally through competing lineages until finally redacted by a committee of teachers in Babylon and Jerusalem. It can be most disconcerting, which is why such knowledge was once somewhat esoteric and then later those who knew these things in an unauthorized manner were burned as heretics and the books burned too. Getting hit with the truth is like getting hit by a brick. But when I look carefully, I find that the "teachers" may know some of this, but the teachers of the teachers, certainly knew these facts. And also knew other facts that led them to believe that it was okay to teach these things anyway. That is esotericism. It is meant to teach the teachers of teachers.
I find similar layers in Buddhism, Judaism, and I haven't studied Islam enough to be sure, but I'm sure they are there too. The purpose of esotericism is to teach the teachers and to teach the teachers of teachers. Achieving Samadhi can awaken one to the oneness of all things. That in turn makes one realize there really is a mystical, spiritual, wild and yet natural, unity to all this reality we live in. The founders of Judeo-Christianity called this unified field of awareness "God." The founders of Buddhism called this "Buddhahood" and didn't want to name it and so called the first one to awaken to it "Buddha." This mystical, experiential, subjective and often deeply insane field of experience and sometimes highly hyperaware way of living is the source for all higher religions -- unfortunately in every case filtered through less able minds such as, well mine. The experience of Samadhi, of meditation, of life-time learning from others and from this field within -- is the teacher of teachers, but those receiving or passing on the teachings have problems communicating their thoughts. Like Moses they end up relying on priests, and like Jesus they end up being interpreted by former enemies such as Paul/Saul, or by committees such as the Council of Nicea and the Emperor Constantine.
Such is life. But we can transcend these barriers. That is called enlightenment. And Zuiho Bini is the process of deepening the world's shared "field of institutional memory" so that the core ideas that make sense, can be passed on.
Chris
Posted by cholte at July 17, 2005 10:00 PMHello:
good post...and a subject that needs more study...I especially like your definition of "Zuiho Bini" as "..."teaching the law within the language of the people one dwells among..."
Thanks
David
A few scholars have touched on the Mikkyo in Nichiren's thought. None have figured it out.
Tomitsu was the Mikkyo of Kukai {Kobo-Shingon Shu}& Saicho (Dengyo-Tendai Shu), though they diffeered on its relevance.
Taimitsu was the Mikkyo Ennin? {Jikaku}introduced to Tendai and he appears to have given it more relevance than Saicho did Tomitsu
Enchin {Chiso-Jimon Tendai} said Jikaku had it half roght and preferred tomitsu. He was Kukai's nephew.
Then there was Ryobu Shinto, which Nichiren appears to have lended some validity to, and Shugendo(?).
Which Mikkyo Nichiren critiqued is not real clear, since he often called them all Shingon.
Scholars do not actually know which Shu Seichoji was aligned with in Nichiren's time. They say Enryakuji {Tendai}. I think Miidera (Jimon Tendai}. Unlike Dr. Stone, I think Shumpan got Rencho into Enryakuji.
I plan to sort this out someday.
r
Posted by: ryoben at July 20, 2005 08:29 PMI believe that the reason Nichiren's Mikkyo kept changing is twofold. One is that the Mikkyo of his environment was confused enough that the differences between Tomitsu and Taimitsu were small enough that he criticized them alike. The second reason, appears to be, that Nichiren in fact seems to have started out critical of Zen and Jodo and only later added Criticisms of Shingon and Taimitsu as his thinking matured and as he read works like the Ebyo Shu. The Ebyo Shu was written late in Dengyo's life.
Jacqueline Stone examined this issue, noting that his early works praised Jikaku and Kobo both, and it was only later that he was severely critical of them. The basis of this criticism is the awareness that there is a elitism to Shingon. The Esotericism of the Lotus is ultimately a provisional esotericism. People are supposed to be able to awaken to reality and recognize the truth. Enlightenment is supposed to be for everyone. Dengyo realized that in the Shingon mindset -- enlightenment is not ultimately for everyone -- but only for those initiated to it.
Nichiren sought a religion where the esotericism would follow that Dengyo had intended. He created a practice that, had Dengyo thought of it, might have been the one Dengyo would have propagated. Shingon was popular among monks because it had enough complexity and richness of imagination to fire their imaginations. If you've seen the "name of the Rose" or read the book, the subtext is the crushing boredom of monasticism. Esoteric teachings are fascinating -- I've found them so. and they stimulate the mind.
As long as that stimulation is selfish however, they are provisional teachings and not "real" enlightenment worthy of taking "down from the mountain" because those who fall in love with them prefer to stay on the mountain forever and never come down to the real world to spread the word of enlightenment and bring others to the same "place."
That is the danger of monasticism and esotericism in general. It tends to bread authoritarianism and dual doctrines "dumbed down exotericism" for the masses and monasticism for the privelaged.
Posted by: Chris at July 24, 2005 10:53 PM