Last weekend there was a celebration at the Southern California Nichiren Shu Temple honoring their 90th anniversay. I was, unfortunately, not able to attend; but from what I've read it was fine gathering.
Until this celebration was announced I was not aware that Nichiren Buddhism has been a presence in the U.S. that long. Buddhism in the U.S. is very new; we're all baby Buddhists in some ways. So 90 years is a long time for a Temple to have been active.
Congratulations to all, and particularly Nichiren Shu for bringing the daimoku to these shores.
Dharmajim
Lately I've been studying some of Nichiren's writings; particularly Rissho Ankoku Ron and some of the earlier essays that lead up to that famous treatise. What has moved into the foreground on this reading is how syncretic Nichiren is in his approach. Perhaps eclectic would be a better word. But what I mean is that Nichiren draws on at least three spiritual traditions and weaves them seamlessly together in his writings.
The first, and most important, is Buddhism. I am continually impressed with the depth and breadth of Nichiren's studies and his ability to make connections and interpretations of all of this disparate material.
The second tradition is Confucianism. It is surprising to me how often Nichiren quotes Confucian works or references well known Confucian stories (well known to his audience) to make a point. He seems to regard Confucian works as proof texts. In addition, many of his interpretations regarding the Lotus Sutra have a distinctly Confucian ring to them; such as Shakyamuni being our parent and teacher. Confucianism often merged the categories of parent and teacher arguing that we should treat our teachers as well as, or even better than, our parents. And, of course, filial piety is the primary virtue of Confucianism.
The third tradition is Shinto. I don't recall Nichiren directly quoting things like the Kojiki, or other sources of Japanese mythos (but I haven't read everything). The Shinto influence is present, though, on many of his mandalas in the form of various Shinto deities. By Nichiren's day most Japanese had merged Shinto and Buddhism into a single entity through a system of correspondences such that the Shinto deities were considered to be manifestations of various Buddhist Bodhisattvas and/or deities. It seems that Nichiren accepted this approach.
Finally, now and then Nichiren quotes from Taoist sources, such as Chuang Tzu. Not very often, and I think the Taoist influence is minor. Confucianism seems more important to him.
Understanding this spectrum of influences has helped me to round out the portrait of Nichiren in my own mind.
Dharmajim
Why chant? Why do we chant? In Buddhism the answer to this question is discussed in terms of intention. Most people when they begin to practice (and this is true of other Dharma and Spiritual traditions as well) do so because there is some distress in their life. The distress might be mild, such as a sense of unease. Or it might be severe such as life-threatening illness, serious financial problems, poverty, etc. The feeling is that practice will alleviate these difficulties.
And practice does alleviate these difficulties. It really works on this level. But there is a paradox here: If the only reason one practices is to alleviate personal difficulties, then when those difficulties are removed, there is no further reason to practice. It resembles medicine; we take medicine while we are sick, but when we recover we don't continue taking the medicine. That is one reason why there is a high drop-out rate among spiritual practitioners. There's nothing wrong with this; I'm not saying it's bad that people enter and leave practice in this way. But something else needs to be present for practice to continue.
That something else is Bodhichitta, which means the "mind of illumination". In Mahayana Buddhism the mind of Bodhichitta means practicing for the benefit of others, and ultimately practicing to assist all sentient beings. Bodhichitta is a turning in the mind from self-concern to concern for others. When Bodhichitta is present, then we have a good reason to continue our practice, continue chanting, even if there are no personal observable benefits; because we are practicing to assist others so that others can also open their hearts and minds to the compassionate and responsive presence of the deathless and unborn.
It has been my own observation that most people have mixed intention. Mixed here means that there is a mixture of self-concern and concern for others. The two can coexist. But I have also found that when Bodhichitta is dominant, practice is very easy, very smooth, effortless. And when self-concern is dominant, practice has a kind of sticky feel to it; because I am evaluating the practice, judging its results. Bodhichitta makes practice a great gift to others; and we all know how good we feel when we give a gift to someone that makes them happy.
May the Wonderful Lotus of the Dharma blossom within the hearts and minds of all beings.
Dharmajim
Good Friends:
Vajrayana Buddhists like to say that the Vajrayana is the quickest path to enlightenment. Using their vehicular analysis; the hinayana is a slow vehicle, the mahayana a good four-door, and the Vajrayana is a souped up sports car. What is the basis for this assertion?
As far as I can tell, this assertion is simply sectarian posturing. No actual evidence is brought forth to substantiate this claim. It is simply an article of faith for the practicing Vajrayanist.
Every Buddhist tradition argues for the excellence of their path to awakening. This is standard. But in the case of the Vajrayana I would suggest that there are reasons to be sceptical of their claim that their's is the quick path. For one thing, it doesn't seem to be the case that Vajrayana practitioners are any more advanced in terms of insight and compassion than any other group of Buddhists (or, for that matter, non-Buddhist practitioners). That is to say, I have not observed in the actual behavior of Vajrayana Buddhists a significant difference in these areas when compared to other, non-Vajrayana, groups of people. It might be interesting to conduct some kind of sociological survey on this subject. I am imagining a survey with questions designed to bring out the altruism and insight of the people questioned. I think such a survey is theoretically possible. At least with such a survey there would be actual data to discuss. I wonder if practitioners would be willing to participate?
My observation has been that Vajrayana practices are often complex and require much dedication. Access to these practices is often granted only to those who have done "preliminary practices", such as 100,000 prostrations. In what sense, then, given the complexity of the practices and the preliminary requirements, could one say that Vajrayana is the quick path, or even quicker than say Vipassana, or Zazen, or Daimoku? In fact, it seems to me that the opposite is actually the case. In the case of practices like Zazen and Daimoku, the view is that the practice directly manifests its benefits, without preliminaries; and in the case of Vipassana, which is more graded in its approach, the benefits nevertheless are perceived fairly quickly as access to various dhyanic states unfolds.
May our practice of the Dharma quickly unfold. May the Wonderful Lotus of the Dharma blossom within the hearts and minds of all beings.
Dharmajim
Good Friends:
Vajrayana Buddhist is a strong presence in the west today. I can understand why it is attractive to many. It is colorful, exotic, with the promise of significant secret teachings (and who doesn't like to get in on a good secret?). There is also a significant philosophical aspect to Vajrayana which attracts people inclined to analysis (like myself).
Over the years, though, I have become more and more sceptical about the Vajrayana tradition. Under the title "Vajra Sceptic" I plan to post some of my observations that have led to this feeling of scepticism. Here's my first observation on this subject:
Imagine a Jewish tradition that ignored the Torah and just studied Talmud and later commentary. Or, try to imagine a Confucian tradition without the "Analects". Or a Christian tradition that left out Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but for some reason accpeted John.
From our perspective, such traditions would have crucial aspects of their traditions missing. It isn't that there would be nothing profound in such traditions, but their relationship to their own stream of spirituality would be tenuous and everything they say would be somewhat askew.
When I discovered that the Vajrayana traditions, in its Tibetan forms, never translated significant sections of the Buddhist Canon I was surprised. This is because Tibetan Buddhists often refer to their own Canon as the "most complete" or "largest" collection of Buddhist scriptures. But this does not seem to be the case. The portions not present in the Tibetan Canon(s) are things like the "Long Discourses", "Middle Length Discourses", etc. That is quite a lot. It is virtually the entire Pali Canon, or the Sarvastivada Canon.
In contrast, the Chinese Canon contains all of this material in the Sarvastivada version. In addition, when Japan became aware of the Pali Canon, they translated that Canon into Chinese, so that it could be incorporated into their overall studies of the Dharma.
This may seem like an abstract and merely scholarly concern; but I think it has practical implications. Just as a Jewish tradition absent the Torah would be a tradition that persistently presented a kind of distorted Judaism, so also I think Vajrayana presents a consistently distorted kind of Dharma because it is simply not grounded in the basic teachings present in the Nikayas and Agamas.
Note that I am not saying that one should become a Theravadan or Sarvastivadan. What I am indicating is that these basic teachings are a part of the body of the Dharma and that without them it is difficult to form a complete picture of the teachings. A good example is Nichiren who refers to these teachings to contrast them with the Lotus Sutra. But without those teachings such a contrast, and therefore the illuminating of the meaning of ultimate teachings like the Lotus Sutra, would be more difficult. There are many examples like this.
More to come.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
Good Friends:
Thanks to everyone here at Fraught With Peril on inviting me to blog. I have given my blog the title "Realms" as a reference to the "3,000 realms in each moment of thought" view, or ichinen sanzen. I love Nichiren's writings on this. It is what initially attracted me to Nichiren. The beauty of this view continues to unfold for me as I continue to practice. It explains with marvellous precision just why it is possible for all of us to become Buddhas. And this, in turn, lays a foundation for that great moment of joy and trust in the Dharma which Nichiren emphasizes is central to awakening.
Another meaning of "Realms" is a reference to the many Dharma traditions in the world today. For those who don't know me, my history in the Dharma includes extended periods of study in Zen, Theravada, and Dzog Chen. In some ways my journey in the Dharma is typical of many westerners; travelling through various traditions. So I bring to my understanding of Nichiren this history and an appreciation for the many ways in which the Dharma blossoms in the world today.
Once again, thanks to Fraught With Peril.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim