Good Friends:
I've been observing the discussion on who is the true Buddha at several online locations. Not wishing to be left out, here are a few observations on this topic for your consideration.
I tend to view the idea that Nichiren is the True Buddha, or the Buddha of Mappo, put forth by some Nichiren traditions in the light of general Buddhist history. From this perspective this idea of Nichiren as Buddha is one example of a pattern in Buddhist history that reappears regularly. The pattern is this: A Buddhist teacher/sage is elevated by that teacher's followers to the status of a Buddha. The usual consequence of this is that the teachings of Shakyamuni are displaced and the teachings of the teacher in question become the central concern of the tradition. Here are some examples.
In the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism the founder of the tradition is Padmasambhava. He is often referred to by Nyingmapas as "The Second Buddha" or the "Budda of this Age." The result of this is that legendary works, hidden by Padmasambhava in caves, or buried, or hidden in dream or celestial realms, have become the primary scriptures and doctrines of this tradition. The "Tibetan Book of the Dead" is a well-known example of this. These hidden teachings are called "terma"; many of them have only the most tenuous relationship to traditional Buddhadharma.
Another examle is Garab Dorje, the founder of the Dzog Chen lineages. The doctrines of Garab Dorje are sometimes explicitly at odds with those taught in the Buddhadharma; such as the nature of causation. However, in the Dzog Chen lineages, Garab Dorje trumps Shakyamuni on the grounds that Garab Dorje is the Buddha of our age and of that tradition.
Another example is certain periods in Zen history. The idea is that a Zen Master's enlightenment is the equal of Shakyamuni's; for this reason it is not necessary to study the doctrines of Shakyamuni. One needs only to ponder the sayings of the Zen Masters. Zen as a tradition is not consistent on this point, but at certain times it seems to fall into this kind of thinking, particularly in its more iconoclastic manifestations.
I see those Nichiren traditions which offer the idea of Nichiren as the Buddha of Mappo following this same pattern. I refer to the pattern as "valorization." Let me say here that I am not claiming that there is nothing valuable in the Nyingma or Dzog Chen or valorized Nichiren traditions. My view is that if you view Padmasambhava as the origin of the teaching, then what you are practicing is Padmasambhavaism; not Buddhism. That's not a bad thing, but I think one should be clear about what one is doing.
A contrast will help illustrate what I mean. The Chuan Chen tradition of Taoism has incorporated many Buddhist elements. They chant the Heart Sutra, for example. But Chuan Chen Taoism doesn't pretend to be Buddhist; they are a Taoist tradition that has borrowed some Buddhist ideas. No harm done here.
Similarly, I think Buddhist traditions that valorize their founder (usually their founder) are spiritual traditions that have borrowed some Buddhist elements but are not genuinely Buddhist. There are many spiritual traditions and there's always room for more, so I'm not saying one should not do this. I'm only suggesting that valorized traditions have, at best, only a slight relationship to the Buddhadharma and it would be clearer for everyone if, like Chuan Chen Taoism, they would just say who they are.
My primary concern with valorizing Nichiren is that the result of such a maneuver seems to be the loss of a Dharma context. If Nichiren is the Buddha of Mappo, our age, then why bother studying the Dharma? Why bother studying the Lotus Sutra? A kind of shift of focus takes place that results, in my opinion, in the loss of depth and the severing of connections with one's tradition.
In all honesty I think this runs counter to what Nichiren was asking. One of the central criticisms Nichiren makes of other traditions at the time he was writing was that these other traditions (Pure Land, Zen, Shingon) had lost their connection to the Dharma of Shakyamuni; that they had substituted other teachings and goals other than full liberation. I read Nichiren as attempting to bring the focus back to the Dharma of Shakyamuni.
So that's how I see it at this time. Meaning no disrespect to those who disagree.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
I hear you, Jim, and I have heard many others on this matter in recent days. Leaving all sectarian issues aside (I personally have caught a lot of abuse despite not being a member of any sect whatsoever and earnestly trying not to abuse anyone), there is a point being missed in all of this that bugs me. Here it is in a nutshell:
A clear majority of these Nichiren Buddhists want to distance themselves from Nichiren in order to more closely embrace Shakyamuni. I see that as a rejection of a real, living, flesh and blood and warts and all, awakened master - in favor of a highly mythologized and historically problematic founder. The immense paradox in this is that so many of those same people take a stand on the side of rationality and anti-dogmatism while upholding the mythic figure above the real human being.
There may be other more partisan interests in the Nichiren is/is not a Buddha fight, but if given a choice between revering a Nichiren and a Shakyamuni, it's kind of like being given a choice between revering my dad or Winston Churchill. Churchill was the great statesman of the history books, and my dad was the guy who sometimes came home from work in a sour mood, but I'll take my dad every time, sweaty smell and all.
May you all attain lasting peace,
Harry
Harry -
Respectfully, I would have an easier time accepting this viewpoint if Nichiren were alive today, or at least within living memory. I'll grant we have a much more accurate view of Nichiren through the lens of time than we do of Shakyamuni; nonetheless I find Jim's last paragraph persuasive. I don't personally find Shakyamuni's history problematic; even if we don't have many of the details right, the lack doesn't affect my own practice to any significant extent.
Would I feel differently if it were a choice between practicing Buddhism and Nichirenism? I don't know. I do personally believe, from everything of his I've read, that Nichiren would have abhorred the concept of Nichirenism.
That said, I fall back on my "many choices" argument; that it is a good thing there are many different ways of practicing this, since we are all certainly not going to agree on any one way of doing so. Just like we don't all like the same kinds of clothing or food, but we do all dress and eat.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at September 30, 2004 01:49 PMThanks or posting this Dharmajim. I have actually heard this from Dharmajim offline but it is good to see it written down with all the threads pulled together.
In response to Harry, I can see where my stance might seem confusing. Especially since I love throwing that Senji Sho quote in people's faces all the time (this is far from the first time I have done that). The thing is that if I were going to revere a teacher who is a real peson and not a historical personage (with all the valorization and color) or a semi-legendary personage (like Shakyamuni Buddha) than I would have long ago left Nichiren Buddhism and stuck with the Won Buddhists or perhaps become the student of one of the many Zen Masters I have met over the years and been profoundly impressed by in terms of their character, integrity (at least to my knowledge), insight, and compassion.
But in the end, I find that it is Nichiren's teaching and practice that really grips me. And I would not even say in spite of myself. I always find it worthwhile to struggle with what he says and how he says it. And I have pulled his arguments away from the sometimes excessive rhetoric and investigated them for myself, and I truly believe they hold up for the most part. In fact, what I found was that his arguments were not self-serving rants of his own, but were very strongly grounded in the sutras and the insights of Chih-i and Mia0-lo. Nichiren was standing on the shoulders of giants and though he was a flawed being he became a giant himself because he was willing to stand on those shoulders and even leap further. In Zen parlance, he went to the top of the 100 foot pole and then leaped off. He sincerely and honestly followed the tradition of the Lotus Sutra and T'ien-t'ai's reading of it - and then went beyond it by presenting the Three Great Hidden Dharmas for all people. But in doing this he never tried to aggrandize himself or make himself the origin and exemplar of Buddhism. He saw himself as one of us, and pointed back to the example and teaching of his primary source of inspiration - Shakyamuni Buddha. In following Shakyamuni Buddha I follow Nichiren. In following the Buddha I do not believe I am following a mythical figure but rather the ideal of what humanity is capable of in terms of spiritual maturity. And I have met people who have lived up to that example to varying degrees. So I know it is not just a mythical ideal but a possible ideal, and even for some people an actuality. Nichiren himself exemplified many, though not all, aspects of that ideal. He is one of us, and I find him fascinating and worth listening to for that very reason. It is why I spend so much time reading him, translating him, writing commentaries on his writings, pondering what he meant and how he meant it, and ultimately my reading, translating, and commenting on the sutras of Shakyamuni Buddha was itself inspired by Nichiren's constant pointing back to the sutras and commentaries of the great T'ien-t'ai masters and Nichiren's own determination to chekc the sutras for himself. I very much see myself trying to follow in Nichiren's footsteps. They seemingly lead back to Shakyamuni Buddha, but in doing so I believe they also lead forward to buddhahood.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Rev.
I'm not in the least bit confused. We just disagree on this. What's more important, we all chant Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo.
Cheers,
Harry
Hi Harry:
Thanks for responding. I have come to understand that among Nichiren practitioners it is difficult to come to an agreement about this. I accept the sincerity, and also clarity, of the view you hold. In the end, the best we can do online is to state our views to the best of our ability and wish each other well. And, of course, chant the daimoku for the benefit of all sentient beings.
Thanks,
Dharmajim
I agree that Nichiren would have deplored the notion of Nichirenism, and I was very interested to read that Taiseki-ji and the Gakkai are not unique in using the "Buddha of this age" name for their founder. That perspective sort of diminishes the irritation I feel when I'm confronted with that. It would be nice if the Gakkai and NST would admit this invention, though. That's it for now, and thanks, Jim, for the swell blog. Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at October 4, 2004 09:05 PMJim, This is a great essay. Thanks! - Brian
Posted by: Brian at October 5, 2004 07:05 AMDharmaJim;
Excellent article. Wonderful comments. "Highly mythologized" is a key term Bruce - I agree.
Greg
Posted by: Rev. Greg at October 6, 2004 09:44 AM