Recently my views on the possibility of a Buddhist rationale for self-defense have been criticized from two directions. On the one hand are those who believe that Buddhist, and Nichiren Buddhists in particular, are obliged to hold a position of absolute non-violence. Then there are those who insist that Nichiren Budhists are not obliged to follow any precept, rule, or principle other than to uphold Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. I would like to respond to these critiques here and also report what I have learned from discussions with other Nichiren Shu ministers.
As a Nichiren Shu minister I would like to begin by stating what I have learned from my sensei about the Nichiren Shu's opposition to war. The Nichiren Shu is organized in Japan with a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch. The legislative branch is called the Shukai and it is the Nichiren Shu equivalent of congress with representatives sent from the different districts. According to my sensei, this congress has issued a statement to the effect that the Nichiren Shu opposes war. However, my sensei told me that it is up to the discretion of the individual minister or member as to whether this categorically rules out the use of force for self-defense or in police work.
I submitted my own reworking of the Western criteria for a legitimate self-defense (the unfortunately named "just war" theory) to the Gendai Shukyo Kinkyujo (Contemporary Religion Research Insitution) which deals with ethical issues for the Nichiren Shu. I submitted this through the NBIC. The response from the Chief Director, Rev. Ito, did not address the specific points of what I had submitted. But here is his response as reported to me by Rev. Akahoshi of the NBIC: "If another country were to attack our homeland, before thinking of using force we should try talking to them. We must use any possible means to avoid conflict. From the Buddhist point of view, one stands against power using non-violent means and civil disobedience such as Gandhi used. One must try all diplomatic means of resolving a conflict."
Unfortunately, this response did not address the issue of what happens when all diplomatic and non-violent means have failed. One is left once again at the discretion of one's own conscience. There is no policy set forth by Nichiren Shu which categorically forbids the use of force in extreme situations. There is a huge gap, for instance, between opposing the British in colonia India, and liberating a concentration camp in Nazi ocupied Europe.
In any case, what Rev. Ito said echoed what I had already sent to him. Especially the following points:
< All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war.>> Now some critics are opposed to any ethical injunctions in Nichiren Buddhism on the grounds that Nichiren taught that we should no longer adhere to the precepts or try to practice the eightfold path or the six perfections. That is certainly one way in which certain gosho passages can be read. But there are many other passages in which Nichiren uphold conventional morality and the workings of cause and effect. Nichiren even advises his followers to follow the Confucian ethics familiar to the people of his day. And when he advised them to resist their rulers or their family in order to follow the Lotus Sutra, he does not tell them that the Lotus Sutra trumps Confucian ethics. Rather, he tells them that the Lotus Sutra fulfills the Confucian ethics because following it is a deeper form of filial piety. The same goes for the precepts and the values and ideals taught in provisional Mahayana Buddhism. The Lotus Sutra does not negate the earlier ideals and values, but fulfills them. One practices the Odaimoku so that one will be empowered to live in accord with those ideals and values as the fruit of one's practice, not so that one can ignore or negate them. So in the Nichiren Shu one does not formally take up the precepts or the six perfections, but one does try to live in accord with the spirit of the Odaimoku, and those earlier teachings are viewed as guidance which elucidates that spirit. But Nichiren Buddhism is not a matter of formalism or legalism - it is up to the individual to live in fidelity to the true spirit of the Lotus Sutra and one does that by practicing the Odaimoku with sincerity, faith, and joy. But because this is the case, it is legitimate for Nichiren Buddhists to draw upon the many ethical teachings and resources available to them to form their own conscience and to attempt to influence those around them in a positive way. This is what Nichiren himself did when he gave ethical guidance and advice to his disciples. You could say that the ethical sphere is outside the ultimate sphere of faith and practice which in Nichiren Buddhism begins and ends with the Odaimoku. And yet the ethical sphere is necessary insofar as we are social beings who must take responsibility for our actions, and the sphere of faith is or should be all-encompassing and so should illuminate the ethical sphere just as it should illuminate the whole of our lives. Other critics maintain the Buddhism itself is a religion that teaches absolute pacifism and they further maintain that the idea that people have a right to use force to defend themselves or maintain the peace is a Christian idea. My response to this is two-fold. On the one hand Buddhism has never advocated that it's non-monastic followers should renounce their duties as soldiers or police, though it has always advocated that it is better to renounce such worldly duties and become a monastic. However, even then, the precepts taught by the historical Buddha stipulated that anyone serving in the armed forces could not become a monk. In other words, the monastic Sangha was not to be a haven for draft dodgers. Nor did the Buddha counsel that any layperson should relinquish their social responsibilities before they had fulfilled their obligations. Nichiren certainly wrote eloquently about the sorrow and tragedy of war, but he never counseled his many samurai followers to lay down their arms in the face of the Mongol invasion. Nor did he prevent or counsel his followers not to use arms to defend themselves or him against attack or ambush. It would be difficult, I believe, to make the case that Nichiren himself would ever have advocated an absolute pacifism though many of his latter day followers like Nichidatsu Fuji have adhered to an absolute pacifism which is admirable and heroic. As for Christianity being the origin of the theory of a right to self-defence, I think that is overlooking that all societies have believed this. It just so happens that it was Christian thinkers like Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas (relying themselves on pagan ethical considerations) who articulated a set of very strict standards regarding what could or could not be regarded as a legitmate self-defence. Admittedly, these are more often observed (if at all) in the breach rather than in the observance and every aggressor has attempted to rationalize or justify their actions. But these rationalizations would happen regardless of whether a strict standard had been set up. In fact, in Sri Lankan history Theravadin monks have frequently argued for war in order to protect the Dharma and the Mahayana Nirvana Sutra likewise contains passages which justify the use of force to protect the Dharma - in both cases these justifications would not meet the strict criteria of the Western theory of "just war." The standard itself was not a rationalization or justification for aggression or the use of force as a first resort. Rather, the standard was an attempt to invalidate such things. In any case, Christianity itself, and it may be unique in this, is one of the few religions where one could say that the founder advocated an absolute pacifism for all followers without distiniction. Jesus taught that one should "resist not evil", and "turn the other cheek", and warned that "those who live by the sword die by the sword." Until Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, Christians usually refused to serve in the armed forces. To this day, groups like the Quakers and the Catholic Workers uphold this heroic and absolute standard. And they are among those who counsel conscientious objectors - something that the Buddha himself never advocated. So the line between absolute pacifism and the right to use force in self-defense or peace keeping is by no means a line between Buddhism and Christianity. I feel it is a line between an absolute heroic idealism, and a more realistic and pragmatic standard of conduct. Ultimately, I favor the heroic pacifism of the Nipponzan Myohoji, the Catholic Workers, the Quakers, and many others. But I do not think that a heroic standard can be demanded of people, nor should it be used as a yardstick to judge Nichiren Buddhists - many of whom serve in the military or the police force. It should go without saying that killing is a bad cause, and to be in a situation where one must resort to it (even as a last resort) is not a good thing. But I believe it should be left up to the conscience of the individual to determine how they will act when the choice is between total non-violence and the use of force to subdue those who are about to kill oneself, one's family, other loved ones, or those whose lives one is sworn to protect. There is no policy which presumes to make this decision for anyone, nor should there be. It is between the conscience of the individual, the unbiased workings of the law of cause and effect, and the liberative power of the Wonderful Dharma. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo, Warning - I do wish to get reasonable feedback and comments on this. Bit because this issue is so contentious and because this is my blog, I reserve the right to cut off the comment section if I feel that what is being posted has crossed the line into disrespectful and/or contentious rhetoric.
Ryuei
“Warning - I do wish to get reasonable feedback and comments on this. Bit because this issue is so contentious and because this is my blog, I reserve the right to cut off the comment section if I feel that what is being posted has crossed the line into disrespectful and/or contentious rhetoric.”
No doubt, this would be in reference to myself, Chikushonin.
You might be a bit short sighted here.
“If one has no mirror, one cannot see one’s own face, and if one has no opponents, one cannot learn of one s own errors.” (The Opening of the Eyes: Kaimoku sho)
I will post below the reply that I wrote before emailing you to find out if the comments section of your blog had been inadvertently turned off. I guess your article above is your polite and respectful reply to my inquiry.
If you can’t handle a bit of criticism, perhaps you are trying to answer the wrong calling.
How is cutting off the comments section any different than barring the Temple Gate to avoid a debate that you cannot prevail in? It seems that my “disrespectful and/or contentious rhetoric” has been demonstrated as absolutely accurate.
Here, to be “disrespectful and/or contentious” of another would be to not attempt to correct another’s errors when it is within your power to do so.
In attempting to do so, I have shown you the deepest compassion and respect. Gassho.
Sincerely, Chikushonin
PS: I will forward this to Jussi, as he was a participant in the conversation (aware that you know how to use the delete button in the editing section).
Dear Ryuei,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I can understand that you may find my tone ‘off putting’. I am glad that this time it has not stopped you from replying. In fact, your tendency to stop replying is the source of much of tone that you find ‘off putting’. I would be greatly pleased if you continue to take that source away from me.
My own thought is that honest and straightforward communication is the starting point for understanding one another, regardless of the tone or skill of delivery. As long we continue to resolve our differences in a manner that is truly honest, upright and gentle in intent, ready and willing to acknowledge and correct what we have mistaken as true, we are practicing the art that truly brings an end to the cause of all wars.
Another source of the tone that you find off putting, you have brought up in your reply when you mention the three proofs. Specifically, you don’t seem to give them much credence, although you do pay them lip service. Without agreeing to and adhering to a basis for settling our disagreements, we have no means to resolve them, and will therefore continue to “talk past one another”.
The definition of the three proofs that I am working with is the one I learned when I practiced with the SGI:
“Documentary proof, theoretical proof and actual proof. Three standards for judging the validity of a given teaching. Documentary proof means that the doctrine of a particular sect is based upon or in accord with the sutras. Theoretical proof means that a doctrine is compatible with reason and logic. Actual proof means that the content of a doctrine is borne out by actual result when put into practice. Nichiren Daishonin states in the "San Sanzo Kiu no Koto" (The Three Priests' Prayers for Rain) that he has found documentary and theoretical proofs to be vital in judging the validity of Buddhist teachings, but that actual proof surpasses both.”
While I think that you and I both agree with Nichiren that “actual Proof” is the most important, the first test that must be passed, as teachers and students of Buddhism that claim to be of the Nichiren tradition in determining whether our views and arguments are valid, is one of whether or not they are in accord with the doctrine of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s elucidations of this doctrine.
So, when I present to you passages from both the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s commentaries that leave no room for ambiguity, thus fulfilling the test of documentary proof, and you responded in the manner of “You may not like it or agree with it, but the standard interpretation of the Nichiren Shu is…” it is ‘off putting’ to the extreme. It causes me to think that I am talking to a person that rejects the doctrines that he claims to uphold.
It is not a matter of whether I “like it or agree”, it is a matter of the fact that the view that you are presenting is not in accord with Nichiren or the Lotus Sutra.
You have quoted Jussi and yourself and claim that you are saying the same thing. This true to the extent of the thoughts you have quoted. I should add that in this limited scope of the conversation at hand, all three of us are in agreement. More importantly, all three of us are in accord with doctrine, and have a basis to build on. But there is a difference between your thoughts and Jussi’s as they have been stated: Jussi’s statement is true, full and complete; your statement is contradicted by the words that precede it, rendering the fault of “mixing”, and the words that follow, “So I do not accept the antinomian interpretation of Nichiren Buddhism”, which is the fault of rejecting, or ‘closing ones ears’.
You seem to equate ‘antinomian’ and ‘faith alone’ as it pertains to Nichiren’s teachings and the practice of the Lotus Sutra with “a blank slate wherein anything goes because ethics and compassion have been ruled out. “ I can’t help but wonder where you have gotten an idea like this.
The definition of ‘antinomian’ that I am working with is “1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation” and, “2 : one who rejects a socially established morality”
These definitions do in fact apply to the “gain entrance through faith alone” doctrine of the Lotus Sutra, but not in the way you are suggesting, that this approach is void of ethics and compassion. Gaining entrance to the Wisdom of all Buddhas is in fact the essence of as you state “To naturally live in accord with those values and ideals is what is meant by the transference of the merits and virtues of the Buddha given to us through faith in the Lotus Sutra", and the standard of the Lotus Sutra is that this is possible through faith alone. As Nichiren wrote, “The learned authorities in the world today suppose that there is no harm in mixing extraneous practices with the practice of the Lotus Sutra, and I, Nichiren, was once of that opinion myself. But the passage from the sutra does not permit such a view.”
(Note: Above, Nichiren demonstrates the appropriate way to be ready and willing to acknowledge and correct our mistaken views in an honest and upright manner—i.e., “…and I, Nichiren, was once of that opinion myself. But the passage from the sutra does not permit such a view.”)
As for the second definition of ‘antinomian’, “one who rejects a socially established morality”, this is in keeping with the ‘zuiho bini’ precept that allows that as long as the fundamental spirit of Buddhism is not violated, one may act in accordance with local custom. It naturally follows that if the accepted ethics and accepted actions thought to be compassionate are not in accord with the Mystic Precepts that arise as the result of awakening the Wisdom of all Buddha, such a person would naturally reject “a socially established morality”.
If it true that you “find it [faith alone doctrine of the Lotus Sutra ] just as dangerous as the antinomianism of some extremes of Pure Land or Zen thinking that have appeared in East Asia over the centuries”, then it follows that you have not yet heard the name and words of the truth, and do not understand the difference between what is provisional and true wisdom.
I will pause and wait for your response.
Sincerely, Chikushonin 智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myokaku, myojisokukyo/
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
Chikushonin,
Actually my words were not directed at you. They were directed primarily at someone else. The fact is that I am ready and willing to discuss this or anything else that I post. But I will not engage in a debate that has become disrespectful. Since this is my blog, I am under no obligation to indulge a flame war here.
Anyway, back to the discussion at hand. We must be very careful how we talk about "faith alone." I think the only thing as misunderstood as this is "bonno soku bodai."
Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra certainly emphasize the single moment of faith and rejoicing and the practice of Odaimoku over and above the first five of the six perfections - which includes sila or self-discipline. They also insist that the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha transmits all his merits and virtues to us - and Nichiren claims that the Odaimoku is what contains the Buddha's powers, merits, and virtues. So it stands to reason that the one who has faith in the Lotus Sutra and practices Odaimoku will have such virtue in their life. Therefore, I think it is more than reasonable as well as important in terms of daily life (actual proof) to discuss how that virtue would ideally manifest in meeting the concrete challenges of daily living.
But note, that this does not mean we should be setting forth new precepts, or policies or requirements - then we would be back to the Ritsu school's view of Buddhism: being a Buddhist means following precepts. That is not waht I am suggesting at all. Rather, as Nichiren Buddhists we should be living in accord with the true spirit of the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren, or a later follower, wrote in a gosho called the Teaching, Practice, and Proof that there is only one precept we follow: the Diamond Chalice Precept of chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. I understand this to mean that each Nichiren Buddhist must concern him or herself primarily with upholding the Odaimoku. Then each Nichiren Buddhist is responsible for following through on that in terms of their thoughts, words, and deeds, in accordence with the faith, joy, and virtuous empowerment that they receive from tehir practice. In other words they must follow their own conscience in the light of the Odaimoku and not in terms of any fixed precepts as in provisional Buddhism. Still, the former precepts and teachings should certainly be looked to for guidance, inspiration, edification, and advice as they are all ultimately rooted in the Wonderful Dharma.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Ryuei, I can't comment on the exchange between you and Chikushonin, as it seems to be a continuation of some other discussion. I don't see how his comments, though, apply to your essay on pacifism and self-defense. Must be in the context of other conversations.
I just want to note that I more or less agree with the position put forth in your essay. Further, I wanted to comment on the remarks you received from Reverend Ito, to wit:
"If another country were to attack our homeland, before thinking of using force we should try talking to them. We must use any possible means to avoid conflict. From the Buddhist point of view, one stands against power using non-violent means and civil disobedience such as Gandhi used. One must try all diplomatic means of resolving a conflict."
I see this as typical of the idealistic but impractical diversions and non-answers that many pacifists use. They say all the same wonderful things about how awful violence is, how wonderful dialogue is, and how conflict should be avoided. But they rarely answer the straightforward questions. For example:
"If you and your family were being attacked, and in that moment the ONLY way to save your family's lives was to kill the attacker(s), (a) would you attempt to do so and, more importantly, (b) would you be justified in doing so?"
To me the answer is a no-brainer, but most pacifists will just launch into diversions and decline to directly address the question, saying things like "well, how did you get to such a position?" or "I would make every effort to find a peaceful solution," which is no answer at all.
Anyway, good essay, and a comfort to know that Nichiren Shu is not monolithic on this issue. I say this because last year I read some stuff by John Petry which indicated that it WAS, and that one must subscribe to absolute pacifism to "correctly" practice according to Nichiren Shu. For this reason I ceased being interested in joining Nichiren shu.
You encourage me to reconsider.
Cheers!
Andy
Posted by: Andy Hanlen at May 18, 2004 11:52 AMHi Andy,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with what you are saying here and share your frustration regarding "non-answers."
Regarding the claim that one must be an absolute pacifist to be a member of Nichiren Shu. I was told by certain people that it was a policy and requirement to be a Nichiren Shu member (or at least minister) in good standing as well. I have since learned by talking to my sensei that this is incorrect. It is a matter of conscience. Certainly the Nichiren Shu does put forth certain guidelines and ideal positions. I think this is certainly fair, and I even think a religious organization's job is to teach. But that is different from setting forth absolute policies or precepts in the name of Nichiren Buddhism. I was relieved to discover that such is not the case. The ability of the individual to discern for him or herself what is in accord with the dictates of their conscience in the light of a sincere faith in the Lotus Sutra is indeed respected in the Nichiren Shu. That does not mean that an individual member or minister is not allowed to counsel absolute pacifism if they feeled called to do so. But it means that they can not tell you that agreeing with them is a requirement for membership in the Nichiren Shu.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Ryuei,
Thanks for this thoughtful approach. Now, I think that non-violent, Ghandian tactics should be used wherever they would work -- heck, if the Palestinians had done that, they'd have had their own nation long ago.
But Orwell, in his essay on Gandhi, makes the point that Gandhi had no plausible answer to Hitler (his suggestion was that the Jews of Europe should have committed mass suicide). Even the Dalai Lama says that it is not enough to just oppose violence, you have to offer a workable alternative. - Brian
Hi, Mike - I found your piece very interesting. Haven't read yur whole blog, but I was intrigued by your statement about the misundertanding of "bonno Soku Bodai". This is not intended to change the subject here -maybe you wouldl ike to write more about it later at yourleisure, but Ihave gotten very tired of th Gakkai's interpretation of Bonno Soku Bodai as a sort of magical process - you chant for your eathly desires and sort of become enlightened automatically. It ind of functions like a come-on, or makes enlightenment or Daimoku ike aking a tylenol or something.
I had thought the term Bonno Soku Bodai had more to do with non-duality. I'm a bit confused about all this, and would appeciate a discussion at your leisuer. Thanks, Byrd
Posted by: Byrd in LA at May 20, 2004 11:45 AMWow, I'm going to preview before I post again - what a bunch of typos! Hope you all were able to understand me! Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at May 20, 2004 11:48 AMHi Byrd,
I have a couple of essays about bonno soku bodai on my website Ryuei.net. If I remember right, one is called "Chanting and Desire" and the other is called "Does it Work." Also my comments appended to Snap Diva's entry about chanting for a Fendi bag basically summarized what I have to say about it. Also, I do have a chapter about it and non-duality in general (two chapters on non-duality in fact - and yes that was intended as a kind of joke) in my book Dharma Flower (which has to be ordered from me) and a condensed version of that chapter in Lotus Seeds (which is available from my temple and the NBIC). Sorry to sound like I am just hawking my wares, but that is what you get for hijacking this thread with questions about bonno soku bodai. ;)
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Ryuei!
Great blog. I agree with you and Andy that absolutism in ideals, especially about nonviolence, can be taken too far.
Somewhere is the Gosho Nichiren talks about how killing a bad person is like hitting your fist against the air, while killing a good person is like hitting your fist against a rock. He's clearly making a case that the cause made by killing someone differs depending on whom you kill. That's not to say he's saying that killing is good - I interpret him to mean that it's just not so bad if you had to, for some reason, kill a bad person as if you killed a good person, which would be a terrible thing to do.
Andy's scenario about defending one's family led me to something I've often wondered about in light of the debates about the war in Iraq. What if it is someone else's family who could be saved by your, possbily violent, intervention?
The classic scenario is the pregnant woman getting beaten up across the street. Do we let her die, or do we fend off and possibly kill her attacker? The pacifist view seems to be "let her die," which I find to be an evil in itself.
While killing always leads to anger and hostility - the families of the killed tend to be very angry - it does seem to me that there is a definite case for good even from violence if the attacker is harming a good or innocent person.
Best,
Melanie
Posted by: Melanie at May 23, 2004 04:37 PMMelanie wrote:
"The classic scenario is the pregnant woman getting beaten up across the street. Do we let her die, or do we fend off and possibly kill her attacker? The pacifist view seems to be "let her die," which I find to be an evil in itself."
Melanie, I have rarely disagreed with you over the years, and I do not here. For me, in my perhaps far-from-enlightened condition, this is also a no-brainer. Of course, if I could, I would defend the woman by whatever means necessary, just as I would take the life of someone who attacks my family, if that were necessary to protect them.
As we expand from our family to the pregnant lady across the street, the line becomes a bit more difficult, and then you get to instances involving defending one's country and/or oppressed people in other countries. There we each have to discern and decide, of course.
I like to think that my decisions in this regard are, more and more, influenced by my growing practice of faith and the idea that all life is precious. Certainly I do not view all of these things the same way as I did years ago, and I do see change in my outlook and resultant actions.
Silly as it may sound, years ago I would immediately kill a spider if it was "in my realm" (or more likely, being intensely arachniphobic, have someone else - like my wife - kill it). Today I am more likely to try to find a way to remove it and toss it outside. Likewise, when I view world affairs I do not see things in the same black and white way I used to, and I am much more thoughtful, and reluctant, before I agree that violence and/or war is justified.
Well, I ramble. Most things are not, really, crystal clear (at least to my unenlightened eyes), and those who say that most are, are in my opinion a bit deluded.
Cheers!
Andy
Posted by: Andy Hanlen at May 24, 2004 01:42 PMThis has been an interesting exchange of ideas, ideals, and dogmas to read.
I agree with Charles that we all share in a single dharma. Whether we are awakened to it or not, we are all entities of ichinen sanzen and belong to the same sangha by default. The name I give this sangha is the Sangha of the Lion Kings Throne.
While I don’t necessarily agree with many of Ryuei’s views, I do agree with him about the importance of the Three Treasures. Nichiren renamed these Three Treasures ‘The Three Great Secret Laws’. The persons who manifest these Three Treasures, their merits and virtues, are the Buddhas of ichinen sanzen, and they are the true practitioners of Shakubuku.
Shakubuku means to take what is malformed, break and bend it in such a way as to make it straight again, causing it to regain its true form. It does not simply mean to get people to join your sect and parrot magic words, or to do the same things, at the same time, in the same way. True unity exists only in awakening the mind of all Buddhas.
Nichiren wrote that a living Buddha is superior to the image of one (sorry, the source escapes me at the moment). Nonetheless, there are two ways to attain Buddhahood. At a time when a Buddha is in the world, one attains Buddhahood directly through this relationship. At a time when there is no Buddha in the world, one attains Buddhahood through faith in the Buddha’s teachings.
By manifesting Buddhahood through faith in the Lotus Sutra, ‘Indy’ or not, we naturally manifest Buddhahood in our social and physical environments, and in this way we do Shakubuku and others attain Buddhahood with us—whether we propagate directly or not, i.e., Faith is the body, life activities are the shadow; the shadow always follows the body, it is never the other way around. The brighter the light, the greater the shadow cast: this simply due to the power and influence inherent in all living beings, the nature of our relationships with others, and our behavior in the present moment.
What does it mean to be a Buddha of ichinen sanzen?
The Buddhas of ichinen sanzen are the Buddhas of absolute freedom, neither adhering to precepts, nor without them, neither possessing Wisdom nor lacking in it, neither free of karma nor fettered by it. They simply learn and demonstrate the art of living long and rewarding lives by manifesting the Wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment, without thought of self or other, this or that. This is what is meant by “naturally conforming to the sutras intent”, it is the one great reason all Buddhas appear in the world, and at the same time it is the actuality of the Buddha’s appearance in the world. This is what it means to open, show, awaken, and to enter into the Wisdom of all Buddhas, the one great reason all Buddhas appear in the world.
The Life Span Chapter states, “These living beings with their various offenses, through causes arising from their evil actions, spend asamkhya kalpas without hearing the name of the Three Treasures.”
To open 妙 one’s life 命, the treasure of the Buddha (nyoze tai)
To show 法 life’s eternity 時, the treasure of the Law (nyoze sho)
To awaken 蓮 the community of believers 儈, the treasure of the Priest (nyoze so)
To enter 蓮 means to realize that these three treasures appear together 倶 (nyozo honmak-kukyo to)
These Three Treasures and Three Great Secret Dharmas are the life, nature, and environment of the common mortals 妙法蓮華 of myojisoku 命時儈倶. This is the meaning of hearing the life span of the Tathagata, to hear the name of the three treasures, and the one great reason all Buddha make their appearance in the world.
We are the entity and function of the Three Treasures. One awakened to this truth is the Thus Come One, a person of autonomous self-practice, fully endowed with wisdom and compassion.
Rare indeed are the times when the Buddhas make their appearance in the world, but they are always here, living the Law.
Sincerely, Chikushonin 智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myokaku, myojisokukyo/
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
Sorry, the post above is not for this blog. Beolow is what I meant to post here:
Dear Ryuei,
Thank you for your response.
I think that ‘Faith Alone’ is to be understood more clearly as the sutra expresses it, “able to gain entrance through faith alone”. This puts the concept clearly into its proper context. It does not mean ‘faith and nothing else’ which seems to be the understanding you are critical of, nor does it mean ‘as long as you have faith, all actions are justified’.
In your reply above, you had me thinking, “Yes. Okay. Close enough. Exactly”, and I think to myself, “WE are making progress”, then I read your last sentence, “Still, the former precepts and teachings should certainly be looked to for guidance, inspiration, edification, and advice as they are all ultimately rooted in the Wonderful Dharma”, and I protest, “NO! You have negated all of the above!”
According to the Lotus Sutra, “the former precepts and teachings” were expounded “for guidance, inspiration, edification, and advice” as expedient means to train and prepare the minds of Shakyamuni’s disciples for the preaching of the Lotus Sutra. The preaching of the Lotus Sutra goes to great length to explain their purpose and they are at the same time refuted as not leading to true emancipation.
“The learned authorities in the world today suppose that there is no harm in mixing extraneous practices with the practice of the Lotus Sutra, and I, Nichiren, was once of that opinion myself. But the passage from the sutra does not permit such a view ["Desiring only to accept and embrace the sutra of the great vehicle and not accepting a single verse of the other sutras.” (LS, Ch. 3)].” (Nichiren)
You just don’t seem to grasp this point. Nichiren writes that grasping this point makes the difference between success and failure in the attainment of Buddhahood.
If you think Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra are in error on this point, rather than constantly denying them, would it not be better to first come to understand why they both are so insistent in stressing this?
This is where I have been criticizing your attachment to knowledge (I hope this statement does not qualify as “flaming”, it is meant explanation). The difficulty here is that before a person can understand why Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra are so emphatic on this point, as I am as well, one has to awaken a seeking mind strong enough to actually set aside the precepts and teachings of the other sutras and embrace the daimoku exclusively before a person can understand this. This single act is in itself at the same time the cause and the effect of Buddhahood. This Buddhahood naturally becomes manifest in all of life’s manifestations, i.e., our day-to-day activities.
It is just this simple, and just this difficult. Simple because “Though muddy water has no mind, it can catch the moon's reflection and so naturally become clear. When plants and trees receive the rainfall, they can hardly be aware of what they are doing, and yet do they not proceed to put forth blossoms? The five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo do not represent the sutra text, nor are they its meaning. They are nothing other than the intent of the entire sutra. So, even though the beginner in religious practice may not understand their significance, by practicing these five characters, he will naturally conform to the sutra's intent.” (Nichiren)
It is difficult because the sutra requires that we practice it exactly as sutra directs, "Desiring only to accept and embrace the sutra of the great vehicle and not accepting a single verse of the other sutras.”
My criticism of others does not stem from the fact that this point escapes them; it arises from the fact that they present themselves as teachers of the saddharma, when in fact they are destroying its heart by burdening others with their own ignorance.
The Buddha of ichinen sanzen is the Buddha of absolute freedom, neither adhering to precepts, nor without them, neither possessing Wisdom nor lacking in it. They simply learn the art of living long and rewarding lives by manifesting the Wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment, without thought of self or other, this or that. This is what is meant by “naturally conforming to the sutras intent”, it is the one great reason all Buddhas appear in the world, and at the same time it is the actuality of the Buddha’s appearance in the world. This is what it means to open, show, awaken, and to enter into the Wisdom of all Buddhas, the one great reason all Buddhas appear in the world.
The Life Span Chapter states, “These living beings with their various offenses, through causes arising from their evil actions, spend asamkhya kalpas without hearing the name of the Three Treasures.”
To open 妙 one’s life 命, the treasure of the Buddha
To show 法 life’s eternity 時, the treasure of the Law
To awaken 蓮 the community of believers 儈, the treasure of the Priest
To enter 蓮 means to realize that these three treasures appear together 倶, they are the life and environment of the common mortals of myojisoku. This is the meaning of hearing the life span of the Tathagata, to hear the name of the three treasures—the one great reason all Buddha make their appearance in the world.
Sincerely, Chikushonin 智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myokaku, myojisokukyo/
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
Chikushonin says, "They (Buddhas) simply learn the art of living long and rewarding lives by manifesting the Wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment, without thought of self or other, this or that."
I would like to ask him, what is an appropriate repsonse to Sept. 11, on an individual and national level? How would a Buddha respond if He were President?
And, what is an appropriate response to violence on an immediate, individual level (take the pregnant women example from above; or, if you or your family is being attacked)?