Robin Beck

clown,

I think you almost have it. Mahayana almost looks like Platonic Idealism. Except the "Shaku" or transient is not derived from the universal. Also we might deduce the universal from observing the particular; but they are 'two but not two'.

Apparently; Nikko stressed the Universal as the only acceptable Object of Veneration. That is why his lineage is the Shoretsu? I think some of the others focused more on the ultimate unity of the Origin and the Trace.

IOW, Nikko venerated the timeless concept over the concrete form. The SGI mistranslation distorts that. And Taisekiji-Nichikan simply traded one shakumon for another.

In terms of Ji {theory, abstract) and Ri/Li {actual, concrete}, Nikko seems to have prefered the theory. And that makes sense. If you know the correct theory, you can apply it at any time and any place. If all one knows is the concrete, then all one can do is try to imitate it.

r

What do you think of using pinciple/instant. I think no matter how you translate them the instance or actual will always be higher than the principle, being that it is more a part of our reality. Things don't derive from ideals, ideals derive from things. (I'm pretty sure Plato had it the other way.) We shouldn't throw the baby out though and lose our principles in pursuit of things. As far as the buddhist teachings go I think the two have a symbiotic relationship.

clown hidden

What do you think of using pinciple/instant. I think no matter how you translate them the instance or actual will always be higher than the principle, being that it is more a part of our reality. Things don't derive from ideals, ideals derive from things. (I'm pretty sure Plato had it the other way.) We shouldn't throw the baby out though and lose our principles in pursuit of things. As far as the buddhist teachings go I think the two have a symbiotic relationship.

clown hidden

"Greg, in that case, then the LS is all theory. I am pretty sure Gotama did not write the LS. But in the first half, the "Seson" is said to be him. And in the second half, the the "Nyorai" is the Eternal Buddha."

Yeah, whatever. I hate over-theorization. I think it's the product of ancient priests with too much time on their hands.

Shakyamuni, I have always assumed, is a person who was able to awaken to his own reality. This whole "Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha", when applied to Guatama, is just the guy realizing the true scope of his eternal life.

In this way "Eterenal Shakyamuni Buddha" becomes each of our own true scope of our own enternal life and this a function, not a deity or god.

Everything real in the Lotus Sutra must be contained within each of our individual lives and "locatable" in same, otherwise it's false magic and nonsense.

Rev. Greg

VW: Regarding the translation thing, it looks to me like Essential and Theoretical are simply names or labels for groups of teachings, as opposed to being descriptions of the teachings.
```````````````````````````````
What they are maybe implying is that the provisional teachings are theories and not practical. That is, of course, utter nonsense.

The provisional {samatha} teachings are skill cultivations. Mindfulness and concentration are practical. Even the ability to generate compassion or enter the meditative absorptions are useful skills.

They are provisional because they assume a self nature etc. IOW, they deal with daily life realities or conventional truth. They are not theoretical. And they 'work.'

Now, to approach the ultimate reality, one must honestly {not carelssly] discard the provisional. And Gotama, not just T'ien T'ai, made this distinction between Samatha {Shi} and Vipassana {Kan}.

r

Greg, in that case, then the LS is all theory. I am pretty sure Gotama did not write the LS. But in the first half, the "Seson" is said to be him. And in the second half, the the "Nyorai" is the Eternal Buddha.

There is also "ji" {principle} and "ri" {concrete}. Also, so {general} and betsu {specific.} It appears that principle and general would apply to Hon while actual or specific is shaku.

Again, literally honmon means 'source gate' and shakumon means 'imprint gate'. The imprint is the temporal manifestation.

We assume, as Buddhists, that Shakyamuni was a real person. More importantly we worship and proceed as though he was, which has an important impact on how we live our Buddhist lives.

However, I think it's a tremendous leap of faith and even fantasy to assume that the Lotus Sutra was preached verbatim by the man that was Shakyamuni. Seen in this light, the theoretical and the essential make sense.

Rev. Greg

I drink ginger tea for head colds. If you'd like to try it here's what ya do. Buy a big chunk of fresh ginger in the vegetable section of your supermarket. Peel it and slice it into coin size pieces. Simmer it in a large pan of water for about 90 minutes. Strain off the ginger and keep the tea in the fridge. Try to drink 2-4 cups a day warmed up in the microwave. This also works good for nausea. May you recover quickly.
VW

The reason I think the mistranslation is important because there are terms for theoretical and actual. And in that case, the Honmon is the the theory or principle and the shakumon is the temporal actualization.

-r

To answer, in part, the mistranslation sets up a reversal of meaning. And that does serve Taisekiji's interest, btw. Further comment must wait until my head cold clears up.

I have studied a bit of Tiantai, and I get about 30% of it. But in Japan, in Nichiren's time, the Maka Shikan was LAW.

r

Robin,
This is a great post and the topic is something I've been encountering in my recent studies. Regarding the translation thing, it looks to me like Essential and Theoretical are simply names or labels for groups of teachings, as opposed to being descriptions of the teachings. If I substitute the words Trace Gate or Temporal it doesn't seem to change the meaning of the Gosho passages. So while interesting, I'd say not terribly important. It was T'ien-t'ai who categorized the Lotus Sutra in this way, right? I'm interested in speculation on his motives for doing this. What purpose did it serve to divide the Sutra in this way and whose interests were served by doing it. Nichiren seems to reference writings like "The Great Concentration and Insight" as if they were not only unquestionably true, but also constitute proof of his own theories. For example, from WND page 785:

Question: What proof can you offer to support your claim?
Answer: Volume six of Great Concentration and Insight states.....

I haven't studies T'ien-t'ai but at this point on my path the fact that he wrote something hardly seems to constitute proof of anything. Well, for me, neither does the Lotus Sutra for that matter, big old heathen that I am.
VW

Hi,

I would suggest different, more literal definitions for "Shakumon" & "Honmon." How about Temporal {Shakumon} & Eternal {Honmon}?

r

Hi Robin.

An excerpt from your article:

“T'ien-t'ai identified the Buddha of the essential teaching as the true Buddha, and the Buddha of the theoretical teaching as the true Buddha's provisional manifestation, or a provisional Buddha. He respectively compared the relationship between them and between their teachings to that of the moon in the sky and its reflection on the surface of a pond. In contrast with the theoretical teaching, which presents Buddhahood as a potential in the lives of all people, the essential teaching describes it as a reality manifest in the eternal life of the true Buddha.”

Consider ‘provisional Buddha’ and ‘true Buddha’ in light of Nichiren’s comment,

“The two Buddhas, Shakyamuni and Taho, are merely functions of the true Buddha, while Myoho-renge-kyo actually is the true Buddha. The sutra explains this as "the Tathagata's secret and his mystic power." The "secret" refers to the entity of the Buddha's three properties and the "mystic power" to their functions. The entity is the true Buddha and the function, a provisional Buddha. The common mortal is the entity of the three properties, or the true Buddha. The Buddha is the function of the three properties, or a provisional Buddha.” (MW, ‘True Entity of Life’)

Ordinary common mortals are the true Buddha, the entity and eternal, while an historical manifestation of a Buddha is fleeting and ephemeral—as is every phenomenal manifestation that is subject to the law of birth and death.

The first half of the Lotus Sutra presents Shakyamuni in his historical existence as the Buddha, a provisional and ephemeral existence, and the second half introduces the eternity of his entity, and therefore true Buddha (‘true’, i.e., whole and complete).

Hence, “The common mortal is the entity of the three properties, or the true Buddha. The Buddha is the function of the three properties, or a provisional Buddha. Shakyamuni is thought to have possessed the three virtues of sovereign, teacher and parent for the sake of us common mortals, but on the contrary, it is the common mortal who endowed him with the three virtues. “

As an aside, I never like the tendency of the SGI to truncate Nichiren’s statements to avoid conflict with their own doctrines. The full quote from the ‘Honzon no Kanjin sho’ is “However, even the difference between ichinen sanzen of the theoretical and of the essential teachings pales into insignificance before the ultimate principle hidden within the Lotus Sutra.”

As always, consider the source.