Real Life with Ryuei

The Proper Approach to the Buddhist Canon

This is in response to the ignoramus spamming various Nichiren newsgroups with out of context passages from the Pali Canon in his efforts to denigrate Mahayana Buddhism. Sorry if it sounds a little authoritarian, but I want to strongly make the point that when it comes to the Buddhist canon I am not a mere dabbler or armchair Buddhist whose closest proximity to the sutras is through some off hand comments in Tricycle. Anyway, on to my latest diatribe:

I'm a little tired of people either dismissing the Pali Canon as "Hinayana" or of using it to bash Mahayana Buddhism.

I have read English translations of the Pali sutras. In fact, I have read just about everything included in the Sutta-pitaka. Some many times over. I am still in the process of reading and commenting on them. And the Vinaya too for that matter (which I have also read more than once). I have even delved into classical commentaries and summaries of the Abhidharma. So I have a working familiarity with the Pali Canon that is rare even among Western Buddhists - excepting those who are actually scholars, translators or graduate students.

I have also read the major sutras of the Mahayana - some many times over. I have read the Flower Garland Sutra (twice now from front to back and I made coious notes), the Lotus Sutra many times over in various translations (and I made notes), the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, the 8,000 Line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra (these many many times over), the Vimalakirti Sutra several times in various translations, the Queen Srimala Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra (and I made copious notes), the Surangama Sutra, the Lankavatara Sutra, etc...

I have pondered these texts without stop since the mid-1980s. I have constantly been thinking about them, writing about them, obsessing about them. And one thing has become very clear to me - I do not see any fundamental conflicts between the worldviews or values of the Mahayana sutras and the Pali Canon. There are far more overlaps than contradictions. Even Theravadin scholar-monks like Walpola Rahula, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Silak Sivaraksa have admited that there are many such points of overlap and agreement, and have even at times cited Mahayana sutras and teachers approvingly. The translator and teacher David Kalupahana has even put forward the claim that Mahayana teachers like Nagarjuna were even more faithful to the teachings found in the pre-Mahayana canon than even the 5th century Theravadin teacher Buddhaghosa whose commentaries have become authoritative in the Theravadin traditon. So I am not even the only one who sees the Mahayana and Pali Canon as overlapping and complimentary in many respects. This is not to say that there are not differences and even a few contraditions - but it is to say that those who actually take the time to study and ponder these things do not see them as fundamentally at odds.

Nichiren Buddhists should realize that if they want to approach the Buddha of history the Pali Canon is the closest one is going to get without moving into the realm of pure baseless speculation. Likewise, the Mahayana canon takes for granted the material in the Pali Canon and/or the Agamas. It takes these teachings as its jumping off point. The Mahayana, in other words, is the middle and not the beginning of a conversation about awakening that lasted for more than a thousand years in terms of the development of the canon. To cut off the Pali Canon or dismiss it as irrelevant is to deprive yourself of the root of that conversation and to abolish the context of what is said later in the Mahayana. To cut off the Mahayana is to cut off the full flowering of that conversation and not just the flower but even the seed of awakening itself (a point argued at length in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras). The Buddha of faith in his full glory is what the Mahayana sutras convey. Why deprive oneself of the wisdom, compassion, and beauty of that Buddha? So I for one believe that we should view the canon as a complimentary whole just as Chih-i and Miao-lo did.

When it comes to faith and practice, I certainly take my side with Nichiren - the seed and flower of the Dharma is in the five characters of Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo. But the fullest expression of the Dharma in terms of our understanding of its meaning and implications, helpful advice and guidance, the full vision of human development and spiritul maturity and the interrelated grandeur of the Dharma-realm requires an appreciation for the canon as a whole - at least on the part of those who take it upon themselves to teach the Dharma. On the part of those who wish to just practice it - my advice is to simply chant Odaimoku, support that practice with gongyo and other beneficial practices centered on the Lotus Sutra and realizing its spirit, and to respectfully listen to and consider ALL the Buddha's teachers as shared by those of us who have taken the trouble to learn it so that it can be applied appropriately. And as for those who would use the canon in a divisive or dismissive way - they are slanderers and should be avoided as one avoids a river of molten lava.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Posted by at November 1, 2004 11:44 AM