The following are some of my thoughts about who gets to be (or regarded to be) a Buddha. It is the result of many years of ruminations and I continue to reflect on this issue, but I share these now because of some "dialogues" I have been having lately and also in response to Brian's thoughtful essay about it over at Dr. Science. So here goes:
1. I consider an enlightened person to be someone who is completely awake and lives insightfully and compassionately in accord with reality. You can call this person an arhat, a bodhisattva, a buddha, a saint, or a mensch but the point is this is the kind of person we should all hope to be.
2. I think the teachings and example of Shakyamuni Buddha as set forth in the sutras set a very high bar on what kind of insight and conduct we can expect from such a person. And I agree that this person Shakyamuni Buddha is more or less mythical (or at least legendary) though there was (I believe) a solid historical basis for this person.
3. I see no value in setting up any sectarian founder as a replacement for Shakyamuni Buddha, and the consequences always seem to be that a lesser standard of conduct and insight overshadows that set by Shakyamuni Buddha and also fact that the sectarian founders' own work depended on the inspiration of the sutra is overlooked or obscured and the sutras themselves set aside. I see no value and a lot of harm in that. It ends up betraying the founders' own vision because the founders themselves depended upon the sutras and the example set by the Buddha.
4. The whole point of taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha in the first place is to be enlghtened ourselves. There are no schools of Buddhism that would disagree with this or who would say that the Buddha gets to be enlightened and we don't. That would defeat the whole purpose of Buddhism itself. So can the followers of different schools of Buddhism hope to become buddhas, and should they regard their founders as having attained the goal of Buddhism which is "buddhahood" (in the wider sense of the word that indicates a fully awake compassionate person)? I would say so. I would hope so.
5. Finally, related to points 2 and 3, I take refuge in (which is to say I take my primary inspiration from) the person who supposedly taught the following:
"In this world
hostilities are never
appeased by hostility.
But by the absence of hostility
are they appeased.
This is an interminable truth."
(Dhammapada verse 5 translated by Glenn Wallis)
My primary inspiration for how to act like a buddha does not come from the person who said (even if in jest) this:
"Unless all the temples of the Pure Land and Zen Schools such as Kenchoji, Jufukuji, Gokurakuji, Great Buddha, and Chorakuji are burned down and their priests all beheaded at Yuigahama Beach, Japan will be bound to be destroyed."
(p. 243 Senji-sho, Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Doctrine 1).
Which standard would most people regard as the conduct of a Buddha I wonder?
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
OK, Michael, I'll bite. I agree with you that quote #1 is a lot more Buddha-like, and quote #2 is a lot more likely to cause inter-faith strife and sqabbling (if not genocide). But then, why choose Nichiren Buddhism? Why not Tendai or some other less militant form? Is it the Daimoku?
I agree with you that Nichiren should never be considered the "True Buddha" (aiseki-ji's and the SGI's position) if only because of quotes like that. What if the ultimate "enlightenment" in the universe were that hostile? Wait a minute..stop and think about it, the old testament God is sort of like that. So, if we don't like this kind of fundamentalism in others, what makes it different in us? Am I babbling here or what?
I guess the bottom-line question is: Why Nichiren, if this is the kind of stuff he brings to the table? Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at September 23, 2004 12:05 PMThere are plenty of passages in the Gosho that seem shockingly intolerant. We would not advocate mass destruction of temples and beheadings in our day. Yet the Daishonin taught us the Law of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. This is why he is called the Buddha of the Age of Mappo.
The Law - life itself - is supremely important, and Nichiren repeatedly reminded us to follow the Law and not the person. That, one suspects, is why he had little regard for those who he saw as "slanderers" of the Law. So, what is more important, the Buddha - be he Shakyamuni or Nichren or anyone else - or the Law?
Posted by: Harry at September 23, 2004 01:17 PMThe Dharma should be judged by what it brings out in people. So if a teaching brings out hostility, paranoia, and even the willingness to kill those who disagree, then something is wrong with that teaching or perhaps the person doing the teaching hasn't fully plumbed the depths of what they are trying to teach.
But yes, I agree the Dharma is more important than the flaws or shortcomings of those who teach it. That is why I like the writings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, despite the fact that according to some accounts he was a drunken lech and a scoundrel. And I think Nichiren's main case is a good one, esp. since it is built on such solid scholarship (esp. the trajectory of the Buddha to Najarjuna to Chih-i to Miao-lo), a willingness to put his life on the line for othes, and ultimately he was not trying to point us to himself but to the Lotus Sutra. And that is why I follow him.
I agree with Nichiren the vast majority of the time, I am willing to at least consider what he says in those areas where I feel more ambivalent, and in those areas where I would outright disagree or even chastize him for wrong speech I simply recognize our common humanity which includes exasperation, impatience, and occasionally intemperate speech or writing. But overall my main inspiration in terms of faith and practice is a result of engaging him and his teachings. He provided for me the initial gateway to Buddhist practice via the Three Great Hidden Dharmas. So at heart I am a Nichiren Buddhist, but that does not mean I have to be a Nichiren clone. I think being myself in the best way I can be by following the Lotus Sutra is the best tribute I can make to him.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
All -
I think we are overlooking the many times that Nichiren showed great compassion. I agree that some of his rhetoric is very hot, but there are also instances of great care and feeling for his followers/fellow believers. Unfortunately, the letters where he does this are often not the ones where he introduced new doctrinal points or expounded on them, and so get less attention from a study standpoint, not to mention translation. If he were only a Buddhist "angry man", I don't believe that his teaching would have survived until today, nor would "us westerners" be arguing about him.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at September 23, 2004 02:37 PMHi Mike,
I agree with you. Also, my sensei pointed out to me that we can not judge a person just based on the letters they left behind (and we don't even necessarily have everything he wrote).
I alsways bring up that line from Senji-sho because for me it is the most problematic statement of many. It proves to me that he had clay feet and that while we can look to his teachings for guidance we should not take everything he says uncritically. It is the "proof" that Nichiren was not what the Shoshu claim that he was and that we need a less mythic (as Brian would put it) and more realistic perspective on Nichiren's strengths and limitations.
I admit is it shocking to keep bringing it up, and Nichiren's writings encompass far more than just his intemperate moments, but I am aiming to shock. I am aiming to shock not Nichiren Shu members but those in other schools who put Nichiren on a pedastel and act as though a 13th century Japanese monk can do all their thinking for them.
Nichiren needs to be knocked off that pedastal so that he can be what he wanted to be - one of us, a bodhisattva of the earth entrusted with the mission of sowing the seed of buddhahood through the Odaimoku for all ordinary sentient beings with all their merits and flaws.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Rev. Ryuei -
Another thought that occurs from time to time is one of Robin's; that perhaps Nichiren was speaking from a sarcastic or ironic point of view, in some of these particular moments. Such sorts of humor (if I may call them that) are often lost across translational boundaries, not to mention cultural ones. Whether we can make such a judgment at all, this far removed in time, space, and language, is problematic at best; however I do not discount the possibility completely out of hand.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at September 23, 2004 03:14 PMHi Mike,
My own sense is that he said this in an exasperated and sarcastic tone.
But I do revere Nichiren Shonin as a bodhisattva and as someone who fulfilled the mission of Bodhisattva Superior Practice. It is those who would make of him a paragon that I have a problem with.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi All,
Whether one considers Nichiren to be a Buddha or not, we all agree (I think) on the Law of Myoho Renge Kyo. This is what unites us and is far more important than those doctrinal issues that divide us. Please, let's not get into sectarian sniping.
Gassho to All,
Harry
Hey Michael! How come your post on this topic gets three times the number of comments mine did? I'm jealous! - Brian
Posted by: Brian at September 24, 2004 10:30 AMHi Brian,
That's because I have a notoriety that puts me in the heady ranks of the likes of Lisa Jones and that Polyester Guy. ;)
Seriously though, I really liked your comments to and this entry of my blog was originally going to be a comment on your entry but the server conked out and luckily I had saved it. By that point I decided that maybe I should just make it my blog entry instead of trying to hijack yours.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Yeah, I had the same experience in high school: always the best friend, never the boyfriend. Don't try to make me feel better. I'm just going to sit here and sulk! - Brian
Posted by: Brian at September 27, 2004 06:14 AMRev. Ryuei -
A question stemming from some comments on Brian's latest (still unhappy with the activity level there, Brian?).....
Is the concept of kechimyaku used by Nichiren schools besides Nichiren Shoshu & daughter schools? I don't recall running into it (at least by that name) since I broadened my study horizons a few years ago.
Thanks in advance, and namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
I have not heard it used in Nichiren Shu or other Nichiren schools. It is used in Zen and Tendai and other Buddhist schools where the concept of transmission from person to person is important. I asked my sensei about this once, and he confirmed that in Nichiren Shu we do uphold the concept of inheriting the Dharma directly from the scrolls of the Lotus Sutra. This would, it seems to me, circumvent the need for a blood-lineage. On the other hand, the relationship between a master and disciple is still valued, but it is not the all-in-all that other forms of Buddhism (like Zen or Vajrayana or Nichiren Shoshu) make it out to be. At least that is my understanding now.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Michael:
Here's a quote from the Dhammapada:
"Having slain mother and father and two warrior kings, and having destroyed a kingdom together with the revenue collector, the brahmana goes free from sin."
Verse 294, Chapter 21
The commentaries explain this in various ways, that father means self-centeredness, mother means craving, etc. But it is interesting to me that at times the Buddha would use rhetoric that, on the surface, is shocking.
Do I think the Buddha was advocating that we slay our mothers and fathers? No, I am confident that he was not advocating that because when one takes his other teachings into consideration, the broader context, one can say with confidence that he would not advocate such a course of action.
I am suggesting something similar for Nichiren. It took me a long time to adjust to Nichiren's style. As you know from our early conversations about Nichiren, I had difficulties accessing his meaning because, as Engyo points out, he can appear "white hot" at times.
On the other hand, in a larger context, Nichiren exhibits a high degree of flexibility. This becomes clearer to me in his letters, rather than in his doctrinal essays. He seems to be very kind to many of his followers.
So how are we to read passages like the one you quoted. I'm not sure. The worst case reading would be that Nichiren was some sort of rabid fundamentalist. The best case reading is that he was using deliberately shocking language to make a point that otherwise would not be heard. Between these two extremes, how does one decide?
Best wishes,
Dharmajim