It has been an interesting week. Why did I say interesting? I think my vocabulary has diminished. It wasn't interesting is was crappy. And I take complete responsibility for it. I spent a week obsessing about the gosho study meeting. I liked the gosho, but couldn't figure out how to present it. So I studied, and studied. I read the entire gosho, two chapters from the Lotus Sutra, some of the Living Buddhism magazine with PI's lecture and tried to watch the SGI study prep lecture. The study prep lecture was unwatchable this time. I chanted some, but stressed more. I don't know why this got me so screwed up.
So the day of the study arrives and the same people show up that always show up and who haven't even read the gosho excerpt in the magazine. Here comes my negativity. So I do some background and my daughter Leia reads the long passage. Now it's my turn to talk about reality and wisdom. No way I'm going to talk about "Substituting faith for wisdom." So I do my part. (It was not up to my usual standards) Then the next presenter, a school teacher, talks about reality and wisdom. Hey there is my negativity again. Then we had to cut her off because she just couldn't get to the point and finish. Then the last guy asks each member what they think about the gosho and they talk about nothing. So much talking, but does anyone care? Why do we pretend that anyone cares about studying Nichiren's writings? I bet if we called it Pres. Ikeda study, they'd show up. Look my negativity is back.
I talked to a member / leader I have known longer than I have been practicing. He kept telling me not to worry about it. He basically said very few members come to study and that is their loss. Apparently I didn't listen. But even the ones who come seem to come out of obligation. There is no discussion because no one really understands. The discussion happened when we planned the meeting. Maybe we should just have the planning meeting and forget about presenting it.
There is a gosho study every month. This time I am trying to get several people from San Jose to come down for the meeting and have a round table where we discuss the gosho and the others can listen. I'll let you know what happens.
I have been in a bad mood all week. Not really bad, just not really good. I started chanting consistently for the first time in over 10 years. I have chanted 20 - 60 minutes everyday for almost 2 weeks. I am so out of practice. Sometimes 30 minutes seems like 5. Other times 5 minutes seems like an hour. Last night my older daughter, Kaela, asked why I am chanting so much. "Just because you want to?" I nodded, not wanting to give anything away. I finally have some goals I am committed to achieving. My kids need a role model. I want them to have dreams and follow them, do whatever they want, be happy. I never did that, so I need to show them by my own actions. Question is, why am I still in such a down mood? I think it is because I am impatient. Hey, I started chanting, where are all the benefits? Where is the money, the fame, the admiration of my peers?
I need to take action right now and get out of here.
Posted by nt at July 2, 2009 11:20 AMI think it's whack too...
Although probably not for the same reasons you do Nancy.
I ventured out to this same gosho study in my neighborhood, after a long absence from SGI meetings. Every meeting I attend I swear will be my last, but for some karmic reason I always keep making "one more appearance".
This gosho has always intrigued me. I thought this meeting would be the meeting where clarity came too - she did not.
I stopped subscribing to the SGI publications several months ago because I'm certain they are whack. So I had only the actual gosho to read during the study and in the days before the study to consider the questions I wanted to ask in the dialogue.
Here's what the study caused me to think about. Maybe you can offer some clarity for me and for anyone else who has ever considered the following.
First, the meeting I attended began by everyone reading the Living Buddhism study aloud. As I listened, following along with my actual gosho book, I wonderd why the entire gosho was not included in the Living Buddhism study?
A curious concept was omitted. No one wanted to go down the voice-hearers and pratyekabuddhas road with me (actual gosho page 746 top paragraph column 2), especially when I posed the questions:
1. Who are/were they in regard to present day?
2. Is it possible that they both exist now?
3. If so, what is the possibility of their attaining enlightenment?
Next, speaking of wisdom and reality, I posed another question. If Nichiren himself instructs us in this gosho to, "Above all be sure to follow your original teacher so that you are able to attain Buddhahood." And he continues to say that, "Shakyamuni Buddha is the original teacher..." WND p. 748. Then why is there NEVER any regard or reference to Shakyamuni Buddha in the SGI practice? Wouldn't the organization be more accurate calling itself a Nichirenist organization or an Ikedaist organization instead of a Buddhist organization?
Seeking clarity but I can't help but think it's whack!
Can I pose these questions on the Guest Blog? I would love this discussion. Who are the present day voice hearers?... I never thought about that. I am the only person at these study meetings with the gosho book. Except this last one - a region leader came, he had his gosho book open. So if you don't read the gosho, you have never heard of voice-hearers and pratyekabuddhas. Your poor presenters must have been flustered when you actually asked questions. I wouldn't have been able to answer your questions, but I would have had a great time discussing it with you (after the meeting, of course).
Hi Nancy and RougeBuddha,
In the Lotus Sutra, (Chapter Six), Shakyamuni
says that everyone present will attain enlightenment
at some time in the future.
I've gone back to study the Lotus Sutra (several
translations are helpful) in order to understand
Nichiren's letters. Nichiren writes these with the
assumption that the reader has an understanding of
what the Lotus Sutra teaches.
Also, I've found it helpful to study the Lotus Sutra with others as my own perception is not
perfect and is always better with other's input.
As for what these voice hearers and pratyakabuddhas are doing today, I'd say they're
doing what comes naturally as they do in every
manifestation. Just as all of us do whatever we do according to our inclination, natures and preferences. And they may be doing wonderful things we are benefiting from in many areas of
the world.
There are so many ways to seek the
truth that we shouldn't be surprised there are
different flavors of teachings. This is also what
the Lotus Sutra teaches in Chapter five, Parable of the Herbs. We are all very different in our
makeup but are nourished by the Dharma/rain equally according to our needs.
The message of the Lotus Sutra (as I read it) is that no one is incapable of Bodhisattva and Enlightenment. Just what we need to "get" in these
times, IMO. What are your ideas on this? Patty
Well Nancy you've inspired me to finally write something again specifically about the concept of substituting wisdom with faith and the difficulty of study or getting people to study. I agree with Patty about reading (and chanting about) the Lotus Sutra as you probably guessed after our previous conversation. Chapter 4 in the Lotus Sutra, Belief and Understanding, for my money redefines a concept of faith. We really need to understand what faith means in context with this Buddhism, as in the West it can mean anything from salvation to the root of all evil. Robin has written a very nice cometary on it too. http://mettasense.blogspot.com/2009/04/three-levels-of-faith.html.
Posted by: joe at July 5, 2009 09:13 AMHello All –
Nancy, yes, feel free to include my questions on the guest blog.
And please include the questions Joe poses in his recent post, “Redefining Faith”, as well.
(Joe, nice to read you again – your wisdom has been missed.) His questions point to the heart of my concerns.
Patty – thank you for your insight.
It causes me to consider what I call the “fine print” of Buddhism, which is from where my previous questions come.
The giant billboard that is the Lotus Sutra proclaims that no one is incapable of enlightenment, while the “fine print” of Buddhism (IMO) damns/excludes the slanderers, the doubtful and the “extra fine print” (IMO) specifically excludes the cause awakened ones (pratyekabuddhas) and the voice hearers, by way of them remaining forever stuck in the worlds of realization and learning.
Am I way out in left (or left-out) field here?
Hi RougeBuddha,
The exclusion of anyone from the potential of enlightenment goes against the message of the Lotus
Sutra. I'm no scholar but have read the Lotus Sutra
several times (and continue to as part of my practice along with chanting) and No Where in this
Sutra does it say anything about people getting "stuck".
My goodness, even in chapter 12 Devadatta is said to have been Shakyamuni's teacher, causing him to "have loving-kindness, compassion, joy and impartiality." (I'm quoting from the Murano translation but any translation will read the
same message in Kumarajiva's original).
In addition Devadatta is predicted to become a Buddha in the future. This is the unlimited compassion taught in the Lotus Sutra-that even those who tried to kill Shakyamuni will someday
attain enlightenment. And it's this compassionate
view of the world and all people/creatures here
which keeps me centered on the Lotus Sutra as my
practice.
IMO, we need to know the source. As Nichiren said in his letters, when there is a question about the sutra differing from the commentary we should
go back to the original sutra for the answer.
The reason so many good people in
SGI choke on the "fine print" is that it isn't consistent with what Shakyamuni (or Nichiren for that matter) taught. It is an added, warped message that pits people who chant the title of the Lotus Sutra against other people
who chant the same title. This isn't Buddhism at all.
The Lotus Sutra is a wonderful teaching. The teachings of Ichinen
Sanzen, universal compassion, complete equality
and limitless potential are what we need
to correct our perspectives and address real suffering. The practice is one most people can
master even with a busy schedule.
Sorry to post such a long entry here. It's something I'm passionate about. I urge people to read several translations of the Lotus Sutra for
themselves. It's difficult at first but with every reading becomes clearer. We chant Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo so we should at the very least study the Lotus Sutra. What do you think?
Patty thank you for your reply.
No need to apologize for its length.
My limited understanding came to the getting "stuck" conclusion from the SGI Dictionary of Buddhism. It does not exactly use the word "stuck", but the wording of the definitions for voice-hearers and cause awakened ones, led me to that conclusion.
Can you also suggest another dictionary of Buddhist terms, different from the SGI dictionary?
Thank you,
RB
Hi RB,
Unfortunately,I don't have an SGI dictionary
to compare notes with you here. I do have the
Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms. The definition there of Pratyeka-buddha is (on page 361) "Singly,(sic) individually, one who lives in seclusion and obtains emancipation for himself only." There are more references and nuances of meanings but that's the gist of it.
There's no mention of being stuck in that state
and no derogatory meaning attached. In fact, aren't we all, if we're honest, attracted to the
practice for our own happiness? Once we gain a
larger view, though, most people naturally gain
feeling for others and want to work for their happiness as well...even realizing a unique joy that comes from acting as a Bodhisattva and watching others gain happiness. This is a wonderful growth process of practicing Buddhism.
And, even if these people stay in the realm of
solitary practice, isn't this one big step above predatory behaviour? Aren't we all better off having them live this life learning alone if this is what they decide to do? Why must we shove every single person through the sieve of the same practice when we are all so different?
Where's the real loss? Why is this so bad?
As for the "voice hearers" or shavakas, they also
are within the one vehicle and will reach enlightenment. We're all in this together no matter what our personal style is (or, as Mr Parker used to say, our halloween costume). All
that is conditional and will change and grow
with our practice.
I'm not sure I recommend the Soothill, etc dictionary...it's very lengthy and also expensive
but many of the definitions can be found from online sources. We do need to check sources on
these things, I think, and not blindly trust others' interpretations.
It's satisfying to talk with you. Study with other Buddhists is important to our own growth.
I've been studying with other Nichiren Buddhists
(and a few undecided Buddhists) for several years
now and have learned much from it. Hope we can talk again.
Patty -
Wonderful comments and explanations! The Lotus Sutra is so expansive and all encompassing; your commentary above is spot on. I wholeheartedly agree.
"A Guide to the Threefold Sutra" (Nikko Niwano) or "Opening the Heart of the Cosmos: Insights on the Lotus Sutra" (Thich Nhat Hanh) are incredibly readable commentaries on the Lotus Sutra (the Niwano is a trifle sexist, so you're forewarned); though I think it important to actually read the Lotus Sutra - if you're going to chant its title, you might want to know what you're saying, neh?
Anyway, I always find new insights and quiet joy within the page of the sutra - and in sharing with others those insights - may you share that joy too in the future, Nancy and all.
Kris
Posted by: Kris at July 6, 2009 11:07 PMThank you Patty and Kris for the books you mentioned. Off to the library I go!
I have read only the Burton Watson translation of the Lotus Sutra.
I find it fascinating, especially when I recall asking what the words (to gongyo) actually meant(over 20 years ago when beginning my practice) and I was told I didn’t need to know I just needed to say them. But that’s another story for another time. When I learned what I was actually saying it gave my practice much more meaning. Then it sent me on another tangent about why these two chapters verses some of the others… but anyway I’m looking forward to the other translations and other dialogue with all of you.
Sincerely,
RB
I'm a Johnny-come-lately to this discussion, maybe too late, but I wanted to throw my two cents in.
I think you should consider that maybe they don’t want you to study. If they did, everyone would. The organization can motivate people to do almost anything, at least they could when I was around, so why not this? All Mr. Ikeda would have to say is “I want you all to become experts at Buddhist doctrine” and there would be plenty of folks just tripping over themselves to get to these study meetings.
The problem with the study of Buddhism for the SGI is that it opens up too many questions. As Patty pointed out it isn’t consistent with traditional Dharma. There are too many holes. You might begin to wonder about things like why so-called slanderers are excluded from enlightenment. You might learn that much of the “history” of Buddhism as it has been presented to you is not supported by modern scholarship. You might question some of the extreme views. You might even begin to wonder about even the validity of “views.”
As long as they keep you focused on Mr. Ikeda, everything is all right. His dharma-talks, if you can call them that, are general enough not to spark much consideration or investigation into the “fine print.”
I once asked the head of the SGI-USA Study Department a question about the Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra. He said it wasn’t that important. Huh. I thought it was. I thought it was a major deal. No, just chant daimoku, do your human revolution, catch the wave, and don’t sweat all this small stuff.
Fortunately for me, I didn’t do that.
Someone asked who are the pratyekabuddhas and the voice hearers today? I think an even better question is, are these terms even relevant today? In Mahayana, the voice-hearers represent the Hinayana because they seek to become arhats, who attain nirvana and upon death become extinguished.
Originally, voice-hearers referred to those who actually heard the Buddha’s teachings. I haven’t met anyone who was around when the Buddha was alive yet.
The complaint against the pratyekabuddhas is that they are only concerned with their own enlightenment. That’s not entirely true. The idea is that they become enlightened for the sake of every one. Like a stone tossed into a pond, their enlightenment creates a ripple effect. Entirely consistent with the idea of a collective consciousness. But the Mahayana wanted to push their own ideal of the Bodhisattva and the folks who wrote the Lotus Sutra wanted to slam the two vehicles in order to promote the idea of the One Vehicle. In short, a lot of this is just stuff that was layered on after the Buddha.
Actually, there really is just one vehicle. It’s very vast and inclusive. Within this vehicle there are many paths that lead to enlightenment. There are many ways to be of benefit to others. It excludes nothing, embraces everything. The idea that there is only one way to serve others or one way to enlightenment does not fit in with our modern world of diversity.
The Soothill dictionary is by far the most comprehensive one available. But, it’s very expensive. And, you have to know the Sanskrit or Pali term in order to look something up. Helps to be able to read a little Chinese, too. Compiling it was a major accomplishment. Especially for the 1920s-30s.
Rather than investing in a dictionary, I would suggest buying a few general books about Buddhism written by qualified and objective authors outside of the Nichiren tradition. Read Thich Nhat Hahn or the Dalai Lama and get a sense of what their take on some of these same concepts are. Once you have a more comprehensive overview of Buddhism, you will be better able to figure out what is the fine print, the whack, and what is real and relevant.
Better yet, go visit a non-Nichiren group. You might find out that they are nice people, who like you are trying to use Buddhism to improve their own lives and the lives of those around them. We need to knock down all these wall that keep us separated. These walls of dogma which are not consistent with basic Buddhist teachings such as dependent origination.
Now, for Mr. Parker. . . he once gave me a piece of valuable guidance: "Think for yourself."
I can recomend A Dictionary of Buddhism (Oxford Paperback Reference)which can often be found in bookstores or ordered through Amazon. It's definitions are concise and easily understood.
Posted by: clown hidden at July 16, 2009 12:58 PMMay I ask which Gosho / Goibun you were studying?
Substituting trust for discernment is an excellent doctrine. Just as there are three primary words translated as faith; there are three words translated as wisdom. The word for faith here means to trust; to suspend fear, suspicion, cynicism, uncertainty, doubt, and so on. The word for wisdom here {prajna} means discernment; which a merit that must be cultivated and earned. Another word for wisdom {Vidya} means true objective knowledge. The Goibun and Lotus Sutra have that kind of wisdom. Even though we can not understand them yet; we can trust their veracity. With practice, this initial trust becomes heart felt conviction -- prasada, shinjin, or pure faith.
In time, discernment will awaken. Discernment plus a source of objective wisdom or Vidya, yields subjective understanding; which is the meaning of the third word {jnana} translated as wisdom. This is also fusion of one's subjective understanding with the true objective reality. Then, one's faith matures as Adhimukti; which means Faith and Understanding.
The Voice Hearer is simply one who listens to the Buddha's Voice and is able to awaken by understanding the implicit meaning. A Pratyeka is one who awakens on one's own, by observing the characteristics of reality directly, without any assistance from the Buddha's teachings, or any concern for the awakening of others. In modern terms, both represent aspects our practice.
The ancient meaning of Bodhisattva was sort of a special kind of Pratyeka; who sought awakening not just for him or herself, but for all living beings. The Buddha, Shakyamuni, was a Bodhisattva in his previous life. In a modern sense, it means to practice for the sake of others, with no selfish interest. So really, a complete practice includes all three vehicles as One Great Vehicle.
Namaste / I bow before you
robin
When does the rain come? In dew time. :)
Posted by: robin at July 22, 2009 12:47 AMRobin,
Last month was "The Essentials for Attaining Buddahood."
This month it is "Many in Body, One in Mind." I'll give you one guess at the main point of this gosho (in the reading material).
One more thing on the Three Vehicles. The words sharavaka, pacceka, and bodhisatta are have very narrow meanings in Theravada. Also, arahant has a different meaning.
Sharavaka, Shravaka, Voice Hearer: This refers to one who enters the Dharma-Stream after hearing the Buddha's teaching. so we are voice-hearers.
Pacceka, Pratyeka, Cause Awakened One: This refers to one who enters the Dharma-stream without hearing the Buddha's teaching. The Pacceka differs from the Boshisatta in terms of vows made. The Pacceka seeks only personal salvation, does not create the same merits, does mot work to relieve the suffering of others, and does not preach Dharma.
Bodhisatta: This is a special kind of Pacceka who also enters the Dharma-Stream by him or herself. However, the Bodhisatta initially makes a vow to save all beings. "He" works to relieve suffering and creates countless merits.
An Arahant is one who has completed his or her vehicle. They all attain the same Nirvana. The Voice-hearers become Anu-Buddhas. Little is known about what happens to them. The Paccekas become private Buddhas; by definition, nothing is known of their future. The Bodhisatta appears in the world as THE Buddha.
The early Mahayana Sutras disparage the Anubuddhas and Pratyekabuddhas. Their Nirvana is dismissed as personal and selfish. The Lotus Sutra refutes that, and takes it another level. Basically, it dismisses the distinction between the three kinds of Buddhas as merely provisional. Moreover, all three vehicles become aspects of one complete practice.
That is an abridged summary of my take at present.
Posted by: robin at July 22, 2009 03:37 PM