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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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