It seems to me that there are some people who are saying that theone great cause for liberation is x (x can represent faith in the Lotus Sutra, or Jesus, or Allah, the Great Pumpkin, or whatever) and that any other cause or condition is thereby null and void and/or irrelevant in the first place.
The conclusion one might draw from such a faith or attitude is that:
A) There is no good cause that I need to make because such good causes will not lead to liberation. In fact, one should swear off making good causes because that will show lack of faith in x.
B) There is no bad cause that I need to fear because faith in x overrides all bad causes. In fact, I can now freely engage in any kind of conduct because none of it is a hindrance to the working of faith in x.
So basically those with such a faith/attitude are in the clear and can commit any crime no matter how heinous and can not only shrink back from good causes but will even argue that no one else should make good causes or avoid bad causes either. Of course, these people are probably the very ones who will scream the loudest if you should cross them.
The idea that through faith in x (either a saving external power or some kind of original enlightenment) one overrides the law of cause and effect is an old heresy that crops up in every religion. It is called antinomianism. It is a tired old story and actually pretty banal as well as juvenile. Those who follow antinomianism will often provice many out of context proof-texts for their beliefs from their chosen scriptures and/or tortuous interpretations of said scriptures and proof texts. In most cases, the original texts are in fact saying something that may sound antinomian, but really isn't.
So for instance - it may be true that faith in x (Great Skygranfather or perhaps the Original I'm OK You're OK Nature) overrides all other causes because it pertains to the unconditioned. But there is a conditional consequence of such a faith or awakening or rebirth or Knowledge and Conversation with One's Guardian Angel or whatever. The consequence is that one is no longer bound by karmic entanglements. In other words, because one sees through karmic conditions one is no longer fooled by them and when acting in the world (because the ultimate does not erase the conditional but is its true aspect) they no longer act in a blind or bound way. This means they will quite naturally avoid bad causes and make good causes - even though they will no longer do so self-consciously with great fanfare or attachment.
This means that the person who genuinely has faith in x will quite naturally live in a way that other people not so liberated would recognize as generous, ethical, patient, energetic, peaceful, and wise.
Those who have not yet come to have faith in x but who believe that just asserting it to the case will miss this point and argue that one should not make good causes and that one need not avoid bad ones. This accomplishes two things: they are able to rationalize their behavior and at the same time claim that they are enlightened or liberated from delusion whereas those still concerned with living a responsible life are not.
Then there are those who are trying to cultivate themselves and may someday get to the point where they realize that self-cultivation has the nasty side effect of enforcing self-consciousness, and that working for gain (even spiritual gain) is a subtle form of egoism. When they realize this they will come to see that faith in x is actually not just more direct and more fundamental to liberation but is a necessary step to escape conditionality. Until reach that realization, such people will at least have a better and more responsible life by making good causes and avoiding bad ones. Thus will they save themselves a lot of unecessary vexation, as well as saving all the people around them from being vexed by them. In addition, they will eventually get into a situation where the good roots they have planted will put them into a situation where they can really hear and appreciate the true meaning of faith in x.
In the meantime, my path is to encourage people to take up faith in x (or to be be less coy - Namu Myoho Renge Kyo). I would not say they need to make such a such a good cause or avoid such and such bad cause to make that faith more efficacious - because it is functioning on another level as the gateway to the uncondtioned and thereby transcends the flow of the conditioned. But at the same time I would caution people that those who really have discovered what x is all about will be free of conditioned entanglements so that one cannot claim to really have faith in x if one is avoiding the good and indulging in the bad (which is a dysfunctional engagement with the conditioned) or telling other people they can do so. In other words, just because there is an antidote one shouldn't go out and drink poison. In drinking the poison, one may then get so sick one forgets the medicine.
On the other hand, the things that formerly were looked upon as good causes and conditions leading to liberation (but which are now viewed as merely skillful means for dealing with the conditioned in a wholesome way) can now be viewed as the side-effects the faith in x. In other words, they are descriptive of one who has faith in x as opposed to prescriptive. They tell us what a liberated person is like as much or more than they told us how to get some "attainment." Now if one claims to have realized the full "benefit" of faith in x (which is a funny way of talking about the unconditioned but language is like this) but is still living a karmically entangled life then something is wrong - the true spirit of x has been missed. So these things that describe good or wholesome causes to make and bad or unwholesome causes to avoid can now be seen as checking points for self-reflection and guidance to get us back on track. They are not formal practices viewed as efficacious in and of themselves, but as pointers to what faith in x's true spirit is like and how it manifests on the person and interpersonal level.
So that is how I read chapter 16-19. It is all about how the one great cause is to awaken to the unconditioned and through that to realize that while conditioned wholesome actions are transcended in it, they are also not excluded but rather become the way the unconditoned skillfully clarifies itself in the world in and through us.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Posted by Ryuei at December 11, 2006 04:47 PM
Dear Rev. Ryuei,
At times I cannot refrain from thinking of you as Rev. Roseanna Roseannadana—you seem to miss the simple points and proceed to get really—really—carried away.
It is a simple point:
“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.”(Shishin-gohon-sho)
The intent of the Lotus Sutra has nothing to do with an antinomian mindset. It follows that “naturally conform[ing] to the sutra's intent” will not manifest antinomianism in a persons behavior, unless, of course you, Rev. Roseanna Roseannadanna, are of the understanding that the intent of the Lotus Sutra is to awaken people to a state of no morality, and the blossoms put forth bear the fruit of arrogance and self-centered righteousness.
At least, with the original Roseanna Rossannadanna, at the end of her titrates, she would listen as her misunderstandings where explained, then say, “Oh!”, smile shyly and say “Sorry…..” , and everyone loved her passion and honesty.
Posted by: chikushonin at December 11, 2006 08:20 PMOH! It is Roseanna Roseannaannadana. I didn't mean to short you one 'anna'. Sorry.......
Posted by: chikushonin at December 11, 2006 08:58 PMHmm, so let's see - I point out that practicing Odaimoku transcends conditional cause-making but at the same time is not antinomian because it leads naturally to good causes and the avoidance of bad causes and conditional entanglements. At the same time I criticize antinomian interpretations of faith-only stances because of the excesses they lead to due to rationalization and self-serving interpretations without naming anyone or pointing fingers.
Then you come here and gratuituously name call, make the same point that I also made, belittle what I wrote without at all adressing any of the issues or concerns raised, and then imply that I should apologize to you for getting it all wrong?
Here let me state things more simply and succinctly:
I do not think that the Ten Bodhisattva Precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra will enable anyone to attain buddhahood. In fact, I do not think buddhahood is attainable. Buddhahood is the Unborn, the Deathless, it does not appear or dissappear. One enters through faith. When one does, then the Ten Bodhisattva Precepts that prior to faith and the actualization of the perfection of wisdom just kept one out of trouble and generated good causes instead become a description of what comes naturally:
What comes naturally is:
1. Not killing
2. Not stealing
3. Not engaging in sexual misconduct
4. Not using false speech
5. Not using or dealing in intoxicants
6. Not speaking of the offences or misdeeds of any members of the monastic or lay Sangha.
7. Not praising oneself and demeaning others
8. Not engaging in insults and stinginess
9. Not engaging in anger/hatefulness and creating rifts in the Sangha.
10. Not slandering or speaking ill of the Three Treasures.
Somehow I didn't sense this spirit in the above comments. So your case, which rests on your interpretation of an authority figure, doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. Others will have to decide for themselves where your teachings will lead them.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Ryuei:
Very interesting essay. I am most curious about a statement you made and would like further clarification. You wrote:
"In fact, I do not think buddhahood is attainable. Buddhahood is the Unborn, the Deathless, it does not appear or dissappear. One enters through faith."
My statement then question is as follows:
Based on the sutras, long practice and study, I believe most of us are in agreement that Buddhahood is a latent in all life and phenomena. When you write that Buddhahood is not attainable, what exactly do you mean? It seems to me that even though Buddhahood is a naturaL (although)state/condition/potential, even the World Honored One had to win or attain Buddhahood. Even though we humans have Buddhahood its manifest vitrues remain elusive to 99% of the population, even to those who consciously strive to realize Buddhahood.
Perhaps we are fumbling with semantics here, trying to describe a natural yet rarified phenomena that defies any true description. I would be most thankful for you to expound on this idea you presented of "I do not think buddhahood is attainable."
BTW, happy holidays to you and your family.
Thank you,
Charles
Hi Charles,
To "attain" something is to attain some-thing. That is the problem in a nutshell! Our habitual way of approaching anything and everything is so goal oriented and grasping. And it is this very grasping that is delusion and that leads to suffering.
The Buddha's awakening is about letting go, non-attachment. The Buddha is a Buddha (in the actualized and not just potential sense) because he was able to be free of grasping. In fact, he had come to know for himself that there is no-thing to grap and no-self or no-one to do the grasping. If this is what buddhahood is all about, then it is misleading to tell people they need to "attain" budhahood. That just sets up the cycle of grasping, a form of spiritual materialism and the false idea that we are missing something.
At the same time, if we are complacent and just remain with our habitual assumptions of worldly grasping and self-attachment then we will never realize what it is to be free of attachment, to know for ourselves that there are no fixed, independent, things to grasp.
In the world of conventional language and grammar, sure we can say that so and so has "attained buddhahood" at such a such a point in time. But that is to speak of Buddha and buddhahood from the outside looking in (or maybe just looking at). The 16th chapter of the Lotus Sutra, on the other hand, tries to express what buddhahood is like from the inside (though actually it negates inside and outside). In chapter 16 the Buddha asserts that his enlightened life has no beginning or end, no appearance or disappearance. In fact, he asserts that all things are like this and that things are "not as they seem nor are they otherwise." This sounds like really trippy stuff, but I don't think its that far out. The Buddha is simply viewing himself and us and the world without projecting all the cogntive overlay of self and other, beginning and end, subject and object and all the deep seated emotional attachment that gives rise to and follows from such categories. It is just reality without all the extras. Everything just opens up and there is no-thing more to attain. That is the "attainment" (of non-attainment) of the Buddha.
I hope that helps. It's hard to talk about such things. Better to experience it through just living clearly and completely the heart of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Perhaps there is a bit of Rosanna Rosanna-annadana in all of us. Admittedly, in this instance, I have exhibited a bit of it myself. Perhaps the last time you invoked the term ‘antinomianism’, with me, influenced my response. It had to do with setting aside precepts.
Still, I did not restate what you wrote. You still miss the point.
I will agree that Buddha-nature is not attained, it is inherent. I would argue that Buddhahood describes a life-state that is manifest in the present moment.
I’m glad to see you state that the Ten Bodhisattva Precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra don’t lead to Buddhahood, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion:
“Buddhahood is the Unborn, the Deathless, it does not appear or disappear. One enters through faith. When one does, then the Ten Bodhisattva Precepts that prior to faith and the actualization of the perfection of wisdom just kept one out of trouble and generated good causes instead become a description of what comes naturally:…[Ten Precepts follow]”
Buddha-nature is the “unborn, the deathless”; Buddhahood does in fact appear and disappear. Because we are lacking in wisdom, we are directed to enter through faith.
Through faith we enter the wisdom of all Buddhas and Buddahood 'appears', it is manifest in the present moment; if/when we depart the widsom of all Buddhas, Buddhahood recedes,'departs', yet the Buddha-nature remains ever-present and unchanged.
The problem isn’t that we have never had rules or standards, such as your Ten Bodhisattva Precepts, or Ten Commandments to measure ourselves against; the problem is the conditioned response we make in the present life moment. Every thing that happens around us we see through the distortion flavored by our karma. Buddhahood cannot be measured by devices such as the Ten Bodhisattva Precepts, or specifics of the things that a person does or does not do.
There are times when killing is appropriate—and this is not antinomianistic in and of itself, although it could be. There are times when killing is a wise action, given the circumstances of the present moment, when not to kill would put everyone around you in more trouble (or danger) and be considered a ‘bad’ cause.
I could go through the list, but to be brief, everything depends on the circumstances of the present moment. Take the example of Robinhood. If the whole of the story were true, did Robin behave in an enlightened or deluded manner by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? How would the story have turned out for the poor villagers if Robin invoked the precept “not to steal’? It is all relative to the circumstances of the present moment, would you agree? (Rhetorical. i.e., it is assumed that no answer is required or expected.)
We don’t live in a world where it is never necessary to kill, where no one ever becomes angry. We live in a world were, at times, to NOT “speak of the offences or misdeeds of any members of the monastic or lay Sangha” is totally lacking in compassion.
Precepts, rules of conduct, can be a detriment, if they are not tempered by wisdom. Could this be why Nichiren and the Lotus Set aside keeping of the precepts and the others of the Five Paramitas?
In the practice of the Lotus Sutra, observing precepts is of no value whatsoever. If it is true (if), “[E]ven 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”, and, if, “the One Great Reason” is that we should share in perfect wisdom, the wisdom of all Buddhas, is counted among the attributes we would naturally exhibit in our behavior would be what is called a Buddha’s property of being Free of Outflows. Outflows are conditioned (karmic) responses brought about through influences in our environment. Action on these responses are precisely what is meant by the ‘chains of karma’ and repeating the cycle of suffering in birth and death.
The Buddha of absolute freedom is the common mortal, who, while never free of the karmic reward that determines one’s present circumstances, rich or poor, enjoying good health or not, has broken the chains of karma, the conditioned response, and is free of outflow, manifesting in his or her actions the wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment, without need of precepts, or a teacher to guide, yet lacking in neither.
Such a state of life cannot be attained through adhering to precepts, which are expedient means, and set aside in the Lotus Sutra. (If one can accept that authority.)
You will probably say that you don’t miss the point. In some of what you wrote, it would seem that you didn’t miss the point, then, when you write that Buddhahood (naturally conforming to the sutras intent) is evidenced by manifesting the Ten Bodhisattva Precepts, it is clear that you are missing the point.
Don’t take it personal. I don’t dislike you. I think of you as an intelligent and sincere person. My thought is that you just need to let go of the things you know and be objective. (opps! Did I just break precepts 6,8,9 &10?) (Have a sense of humor.)
Just so you don’t think I’ve crossed the line over to antinomianism, while I do not adhere to precepts, nor am I without them, depending on the mystic precepts that come on their own, I don’t endorse beheadings (under the present circumstances).
I, too, wish you and your family a happy holiday season.
Posted by: chikushonin at December 12, 2006 08:40 PMBuddhahood is not some-thing that comes and goes. If it were it would be just another dharma that is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self.
The problem with East Asian Buddhist rhetoric is that it uses very precise technical terms in a very loose way. This creates great confusion for those who are not trained to know the nuances of how a term is being used in different contexts.
What has happened in discussions about the ten worlds is that "Buddhahood" has come to mean attaining a certain insight, or oneness, or perhaps an oceanic feeling of compassion. These are all indeed transient phenomena - and they are associated with the Buddha's perspective. It could even be justly said that when we practice we get these glimpses into what it would be like to live free of attachment, self-clinging, and to be filled with a universal compassion such as the Buddha. One must then integrate that into one's more prosaic daily life. So one might chant and really feel hooked up to a vaster unlimited perspective - but then you have to come down and help your wife with the laundry or your daughter with her homework. Real life intervenes - the world of responsibilities and thus ethics and even cultivation and character development.
I think that through faith we touch on a perspective that is always there - the selfless and very compassionate true nature of reality. That aspect or world of Buddhahood is within our life, it is our life, it embraces every other aspect of our life. It has no beginning or end. We become aware of it through faith and hopefully through the unfolding of faith into genuine insight an the perfection of wisdom. When that happens then all that is not in accord with that perspective will drop away and there will be no call to talk about Buddhahood beginning or ending because that pertains to the conditional. But then as Buddhas the conditonal is embraced and once again - laundry, homework, changing the filter in the fishtank, going to work, etc...
May you also have a happy holiday season.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I guess calling people names is "manifesting in his or her actions the wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment." And I guess not even getting the name right is part of that, too.
"... at the end of her titrates." What, was she a chemist?
Posted by: Vanya at December 13, 2006 12:03 PMHi, Michael - I wanted to reply to your Bodhi Day post, which I really enjoyed, but the replies were cut off. I guess I'm not as enlightened as some, I'm still working hard at behaving well toward others and myself. It doesn't come naturally for me, even though I've been chanting now for 22 years. Oh, well - have a good holiday, Michael, you and yours. Your friend in the karmic copper mines, Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at December 14, 2006 10:43 AMBuddha mind does not come and go, the distractions and defilements that obscure Buddha mind come and go.
Posted by: robek at December 18, 2006 09:22 PM