Good Friends:
I have been mucho busy. Leading a retreat and also giving a series of talks on the Vimalakirti Sutra at a local center where I live. All of this has kept me from blogdom.
Since I have been focussing on the Vimalakirit the last few weeks, it has been an opportunity for me to renew my appreciation of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren's teaching based on that Sutra. What has struck me about the Vimalakirti, as wonderful as it is, is that in contrast with the Lotus Sutra it has a restricted message.
For example, in Chapter 8 the Vimalakirti states that those who pursue the shravaka path cannot attain enlightenment. Two quotes: ""Those perceiving nirvana and entering its right position, will not develop into Buddhahood, whereas living beigns in the mire of klesa can eventually develop the Buddha Dharma." And, "When worldly man hears about the Buddha Dharma, he can set his mind on the quest of the supreme path . . . whereas the shravaka, even if he passes his lifetime listening to the Dharma and witnessing the fearlessness of the Buddha will never dream of the supreme way."
The Vimalakirti is a kind of mirror image of the doctrine that only renunciates can attain realization. Instead of entering into a genuinely universal (mahayana) realization, the Vimalakirti mimics monastic exclusiveness; but instead excludes monastics, reserving full enlightenment for non-monastics.
This has helped me to understand just how profoundly revolutionary the Lotus Sutra was for the Buddhism of its day, and how profoundly revolutionary the Lotus Sutra still is. For the sublime message of the Lotus of the Wonderful Dharma is that no one is excluded, no one is left out, that all beings have the capacity for fully realizing limitless wisdom and compassion.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
Very good observation, Jim. Nichiren addresses precisely these same teachings of the Vimalakirti Sutra in Opening the Eyes, Part One. The profoundly revolutionary character of the Lotus Sutra is what gives Nichiren's Buddhism its own profoundly revolutionary character. Perhaps that is why it is so "difficult to accept."
Posted by: Harry at September 29, 2004 05:13 AM"I have been mucho busy. Leading a retreat and also giving a series of talks on the Vimalakirti Sutra at a local center where I live. All of this has kept me from blogdom."
Yeah, some people just have their priorities all screwed up! - Brian
Posted by: Brian at September 29, 2004 10:14 AMHi Harry:
That's a good reference from Nichiren. Thich Nhat Hanh has recently made the same point in his book "Cultivating the Mind of Love." In the Chapter on the Lotus Sutra he says, "The Saddharma Pundarika Lotus Sutra is the king of all Mahayana sutras. It provides the ground for reconciliation among Buddhists . . . In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the attack on the shravakas was like cannon fire. Shariputra, the most intelligent disciple of the Buddha, the big brother of all bhikkhus, was ridiculed, and, as a result, the whole congregation was humiliated. The point was to attack the tradition that considered Buddhism as a way for only monks and nuns, for those who renounce the world."
Another Mahayana Sutra with strongly exclusivist tendencies is the "Ugrapariprccha" or "The Inquiry of Ugra", recently translated by Jan Nattier. Her view is that the early Mahayana was just as exclusivist as any other branch of Buddhism.
If Nichiren, Hanh, and Nattier are correct, then it is really the Lotus Sutra which opens the gate of the Mahayana as a truly Universal Vehicle.
Thanks again,
Dharmajim
Jim & all -
I can't figure out how some folks are able to distill a message of EXclusivity from the Lotus Sutra. That's hard work!
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at September 30, 2004 07:58 AMHi Mike:
I think the the idea of the exclusiveness of the Lotus Sutra derives from the claim that the Lotus Sutra is superior, that it is an ultimate teaching, and that other Discourses are provisional. If someone is committed to another Discourse than the Lotus Sutra they will naturally feel that this is an exclusivist claim. A more modern version of this is that all teachigns are equal, and that therefore anyone who claims that some teachings are better than others is narrow and exclusivist.
My response to this is to make analogies to more ordinary endeavors. For example, if someone claims that a particular diet is better than others, more healthy for example, this is not considered exclusivist. They might be right or wrong, but the claim is one that people will take as at least potentially clear. For example, if someone claims that a diet of refined sugar, caffeine, and white bread is not healthy, and that other diets are superior, I don't think people would regard this claim as controversial.
However, I am sympathetic with those who are reluctant to examine the idea that, for example, the Lotus Sutra is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha. We live at a time when fundamentalists are gaining power and willing to use their power in destructive and oppressive ways. When someone in a religious context makes a claim for ultimacy of a particular teaching it is likely to be understood in a fundamentalist way.
The trick here, then, is to be able to present such a view without falling into fundamentalism or making the other person feel defensive. This is one reason why I think that the shoju approach is the approach that is appropriate for today.
A final point to mention; to say a teaching is ultimate does not imply the rejection of provisional teachings. Unfortunately, I have observed some Nichiren Buddhists draw that conclusion; but I think it is incorrect, both in terms of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren's writings. Comprehending that the provisional teachings have a valuable place helps to smooth the way to the ultimate teaching.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
Hello All,
My take on this is that the Lotus Sutra is exclusively all inclusive. That may look paradoxical at first, but it's the only sutra I am aware of which teaches that everyone - without exclusion - can become a Buddha, regardless of their present condition. This seems to have made a profound impression on Nichiren, a monk of humble origin whose following was primarily drawn from similarly humble folk.
The teachings that everyone can realize Buddhahood and that Buddhahood is eternally in the world, along with Ichinen Sanzen, these are unique and powerful. I am still astounded by them.
Posted by: Harry at September 30, 2004 08:52 AM