Here is another exerpt from my commentary on the Rissho Ankoku Ron. The full chapter can be found here:
Should One Refrain from Arguing Over the Dharma?
In the chapter of the commentary I discuss three parables that are fairly well-known in Buddhist circles (and the first one is thought of as a Sufi story but it originates in the Pali Canon). The three are the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant wherein several blind men argue over their limited perspective of a snake is; the Parable of the Snake Handler wherein those who know how to utilize the Dharma are like a skillful snake-handler but those who only use it to argue are like an unskillful person who gets bitten when he tries to pick up a snake; and the Parable of the Raft wherein the unskillful person clings to the teachings like a person who carries a raft around after crossing a river. The full parables and their explanations are in the chapter linked above. Here is an exerpt of my comments:
These three parables of the Buddha show that the Buddha did not want people to cling to or argue about one-sided, partial, or biased views. He did not want people to learn the Dharma is a shallow or self-serving way. Nor did he want people to argue about the Dharma instead of putting it into practice. Nor did he want people to turn the Dharma into a set of dogmas to cling to, defend, and fight over. But this does not mean that he did not want people to refrain from correcting false views or correcting those who held even right views wrongly. In an earlier part of this commentary we cited the Buddha’s statements in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta to Mara that he will not pass away until he knows that he has instructed his lay and monastic disciples to competently teach the Dharma so that they “shall be able by means of the Dharma to refute false teachings that have arisen, and teach the Dharma of wondrous effect.” In that spirit, the Buddha taught the parables of the snake and the raft in the context of correcting a monk who held wrong views and was stubbornly misrepresenting the Dharma. In other words, the Buddha was purposely refuting a slanderous view and at the same time teaching the Sangha about the right and wrong way to learn and handle the Dharma. In the parable of the blind men and the elephant he was making the point that Buddhists should not be satisfied with the partial, one-sided, or biased views put forth by those without a clear and direct knowledge of what they are arguing about, but rather should seek out the correct and complete view of the Dharma that the Buddha claimed was a product of direct knowledge and insight.
Nichiren Buddhism, therefore, does agree that one should not cling to partial, one-sided, or biased views, that one should not learn the Dharma in a shallow or self-serving way, and that one should not cling to the teachings dogmatically. At the same time, Nichiren Buddhists do believe that one should take up the True Dharma taught by the Buddha, carefully examine its meaning, and put it into practice in the correct way so as to come to same awakening as the Buddha himself. In this way, false views can be relinquished and right view can prevail and accomplish its purpose.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Thank you for another well balanced and moderate approach. So many people could learn from reading this (and many of your other articles) if they just allowed their reactionary defense position to relax once in a while. I should know, I was one of them.
Thank you again.
Posted by: David Mckenna at January 27, 2010 04:48 PM'that one should not cling to the teachings dogmatically' if one were to practice shakubuku, the refutation of wrong teachings, would this be considered arguing over the dharma?
tia
gassho
j
Michael,
I think arguing is more of a human nature than a Dharam nature. There is a difference between conversion and arguments.
For many people, they may not see themselves as one of the blind men, but one of the Dharma masters instead.
Thanks for a thoughtful article.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick at January 28, 2010 12:01 PMHi,
I did not address "shakubuku" directly in my Rissho Ankoku Ron article because I plan to deal with it in the Kaimoku Sho commentary I am now trying to write.
The thing is that "shakubuku" and "shoju" are pedegogical (that is to say "teaching") methods that Chih-i (aka T'ien-t'ai) wrote about and whose terms he took from the Queen Srimala Sutra.
My understanding of shakubuku (in brief) is as follows: It is not a form of proselytizing, nor should it really be used for polemics. It is a way of confronting error straighforwardly and must always be motivated by compassion (or it is not shakubuku). It's appropriate context is either in a peer review situation (wherein in a collegial environment one critiques - hopefully constructively - the findings or teachings of one's peers); or in a student-disciple situation where there is already a groundwork of trust that has been laid. In pre-modern China and Japan the memorial to the throne (like Rissho Ankoku Ron) or the formal debate between monastics was an accepted context for this kind of discourse. I would also point to many Zen koans (teaching stories) as examples of the shakubuku methods - wherein a teacher tries to confront a students errors or shock them with a deeper persective.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
If I understand correctly, that is an interesting perspective on the raft. I generally hear that as an excuse to not practice. For example, consider the training of meditation. Suppose one has cultivated wholesome volitions, achieved fixed concentration, and is mindful and alert? Is it necessary to still practice the Training of Meditation; or should one put down the rafts?
Next door, I compared meditative cultivation to an elevator. Some stand outside and pray to the door; but refuse to enter. I think that might be an example of clinging to the raft?
Posted by: robin at February 3, 2010 03:48 PM