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
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
I've been reading a lot about Japanese Buddhist history lately. It is a dramatic and complex saga. Certain themes emerge at certain times in this history. One of the themes that emerged during the Kamakura period is the single practice view; the idea that the Dharma can be distilled down to single method or approach. This was probably a reaction to the complex Tendai approach which had dominated Japanese Buddhism for about 400 years, but which had become increasingly corrupt.
This single practice approach was common to all the Kamakura reformers including Eisai, Dogen, Honen, Shinran, Ippen, and, of course, Nichiren. The reformers had different views as to what the single practice should be; but they all argued for this kind of distillation down to a single focus and an overall simiplification of the Dharma.
What has become increasingly clear to me, and which is why I bring this up, is that all of these reformers worked in a common context which is different from the context in which we practice today. The context of 13th century Japan was a culture which was thoroughly Buddhist. All of these reformers could assume that their audiences possessed certain basic understandings. Let me draw a comparison; today in the west, including the U.S., nearly everyone knows the story of Jesus, his birth, the basics of his life, and his death. Whether one is a Christian or not, these basics are just part of the cultural fabric. Similarly, in the Japan of the 13th century the reformers could assume that certain basics about the Buddha and his teaching were givens. One can perceive this in their writings; none of them start at square one in their essays because they all assume that these core views are already established in their audience.
Our situation in the west today is different. People in the west have almost no knowledge of the Buddha or of Buddhism. I have given talks for many years now and I can attest to this. Many people are, for example, unaware that Shakyamuni lived in India (many people think that Buddhism is a Chinese religion). I believe this has implications for the idea of a single practice approach. In a cultural context where the Four Noble Truths, and other simple, yet basic, Buddhist views are not part of the cultural context, I think it is imperative that we go beyond a single practice approach in order to establish the broader context which gives those practices meaning. That is one of the reasons why I think it is important for western Buddhists in particular to have some sort of basic introduction to Buddhist thought. I'm not saying that everyone has to become a "Geshe" (the Buddhist equivalent of a Doctor of Divinity). Only that we need to place our practice of daimoku in a Dharma context in order for it to flourish fully.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim