In another forum someone asked, "Does the bodhisattva have to like everyone?Because if that is so than I can't be one." This is a really great question, because there are a lot of unlikeable people out there, and I myself can't say that I like everyone. So this question really gave me pause.
I think part of the answer is in the Diamond Sutra where it says that bodhisattvas save all beings but do not hold the idea that there are beings. In other words, they see people not as fixed static entities but in terms of their emptiness of specific qualities or an underlying substance. They see all things, including beings, in terms of causes and conditions and the underlying unconditioned nature that is the true nature.
When we dislike someone, we dislike them because of certain qualities they seem to have in relation to us or to things and people we care about. I think, though, that if we look more deeply we will see that those dislikeable qualities are not fixed permanent essences and that they have arisen due to causes and conditions - that person upbringing, their environment, perhaps our own bias and misunderstanding, maybe some kind of stress or psychological problem they are having, or perhaps they have a reason for being a certain way that we do not know about. We do not have to approve of certain traits, qualities or behavior, and sometimes it is our duty to disapprove. But the bodhisattva will at least strive to be patient, to get a better understanding, to see that these qualities are empty (that is contingent and not fixed or permanent).
When a bodhisattva feels loving-kindness, they extend it to all beings equally - the likeable and the unlikeable, and this is done with the understanding that the unlikeable are that way because of suffering and their reactions to it and/or because of our own ignorance of the whole situation surrounding them and our view of them. In fact, the unlikeable people are most likely being tormented by their own unlikeable qualties. Afterall, is someone who is perpetually irritated or hostile a happy person? The person who is always looking out for themselves are often lonely and unable to connect with others in a genuine way, and they don't even understand why. So in learning to cultivate compassion and loving-kindness for the unlikeable we are not just being permissive or endorsing bad qualities, rather we are cultivating a deep understanding of bad qualities, how they arise, and how they are a torment to those who have them.
I think that when Christians talk about "unconditional love" this sounds too much like approving of everthing or letting people off the hook. I don't think Christian agape means that. I know that this is not what loving-kindness and compassion is supposed to mean in Buddhism. That would be "idiot compassion" as Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called it. Rather bodhisattva compassion is about seeing through these qualities and finding a way to heal without condemning the people who have them as incorrigible. It is about seeing that the Buddha-nature (the unconditioned true nature) is the real truth about all of us, and that all other qualities whether likeable or unlikeable or conditional and contingent and not dependable or graspable.
Star Wars is kind of instructive in this - when Darth Vader first appears in Episode 4 A New Hope he seems an incarnation of evil, despicable, unredeemeable. In Episode 5 The Empire Strikes Back, Luke comes to realizes in the cave on Dagoba that he could potentially develop those same qualities and then further finds out that he is causally connected to Darth Vader who is his father. In Episode 6 Return of the Jedi he demonstrates his faith that Darth Vaders evil is not a permanent fixed quality and that the good is still in him (we could compare this to seeing through to the Buddha-nature) and that faith in his father is what helps Darth overcome his own evil tendencies. Then, in Episodes 1 - 3 we are shown what kind of causes and conditions turned the initially generous and brave Anakin Skywalker into the seeming paragon of evil in Episode 4. Did Anakin make some bad causes? He certainly did, and every step of the way he reaped the effects culminating in the death of his wife at his own hands, an act that caused him to despair of his own goodness and put him totally at the power of the Dark Side represented by the Emperor. In this way, Darth Vader become a more sympathetic or at least a tragic character in our eyes, he caused his own downfall and degredation but it was not his intention. We understand, even if we do not then forgive what he has done. And in understanding we can cheer Luke for seeing through the evil to the person beneath the mask and armor and finally freeing and redeeming him. I think that is how bodhisattvas act. Did Luke like Darth Vader? I don't think he did. But more importantly he had compassion and faith that there was more to Darth Vader than his unlikeable even hateful qualities.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
The comments on the other entry "Should I Stay..." were getting a bit long and Queen Lolo's question and observations regarding Wicca deserve an all new entry and topic - so here it is!
First off, you asked me for a good sane book about Wicca. I am far from up to date on what is out there now as I haven't been around Wiccans since I was in Philadelphia back in 94. But I did study with Starhawk when I was getting my M.A. at Holy Names College in Oakland, and I was very impressed with her. She is a sincere, humble, and courageous woman in my opinion. And her spirituality has grown over the years - and so she keeps rewriting her intro book to Wicca called Spiral Dance. That was one of the first books on Wicca that I read and I think it holds up, esp. if you get the latest version with her latest thoughts and insights. Another good book was Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler, but I am not sure if that is very up to date anymore, but it does a good job of sympathetically reviewing the resurgence of Neo-paganism in the mid-20th century.
Now, I have had a lot of luck with Wiccan groups. The Wiccans I have been involved with were all pretty together people, and I would happily join in with them again to celebrate the equinoxes, solstices and what have you. In my view Wicca and Buddhism can potentially be as compatible as Buddhism and Shinto, or any of the other indigenous earth-based (which is to say agriculturaly centered) traditions that Buddhism has always co-existed with and to a certain extent assimilated (all those Vedic and Shinto deities on our Gohonzon for instance).
There can be differences however. I say "can be" because there is no set teaching or practice for Wicca. Each coven or group has their own take, and often each individual within a given coven or group will have their own interpretation. Wicca, if not neo-paganism in general, can be highly individualistic. There is a reason so many have found a home within the Unitarian Church. But let me speak generally from this point on.
Many Wiccan traditions do speak of reincarnation - in the sense of a soul or spirit that reincarnates. And most teach some form of karma - cause and effect. These things are rarely strictly defined, but as Buddhists we should keep in mind that the Buddha did strictly define a few things based on what he claimed was his own direct insight. For the Buddha, there is no permanent metaphysical entity or "self" (atman) that reincarnates. Rather there is a process of cause and effect wherein the karmic tendencies and habitual patterns (samskaras) continue on somehow from the moment of death to participation in bringing about a rebirth elsewhere. This passing on actually happens from moment to moment within a lifetime, the passing on from death to rebirth is just a more dramatic instance of it. Within our lives we feel a continuity as we grow older let alone from moment to moment, but the Buddha taught that this is just a subjective feeling and interpretation and that if you subject your "self" to an objective analysis you will find no permanent independent entity to call a "self" within the life process - just the interplay of causes and conditions. But this selflessness frees that process to generate a boundless and selfless compassion and this is subjectively experienced as attaining enlightenment. Wicca, on the other hand, rarely (at least in my experience) speaks of the process of reinarnation as anything other than an eternal cyclic process - in other words samsara forever, though they see it as a good and natural thing. So here is a point of potential discontinuity between Buddhism and Wicca - what we call samsara they see as a natural process that is neither good or bad. Where they see a reincarnating soul that goes the rounds indefinately, we see a karmic process that can be freed from the compulsion of rebirth in the six lower realms to the freedom and compassionate activity of enlightenment.
Also, some Wiccan traditions teach things about karma that might not be compatible with the Buddha's understanding of it, esp. when magick is mixed in. But this is too large a topic to deal with here and it has been too long since I have reviewed the various Wiccan treatments of the topic. Just be aware that Wiccan teachings about cause and effect may be different from Buddhist ones.
Then there is the matter of theism. Wicca is supposedly polytheistic, which is certainly compatible with Buddhism which has assimilated polytheistic pantheons before. However, some Wiccans view the Goddess as ultimate, or perhaps as a pantheistic or even monistic ultimate reality or divinity of which the many gods and goddesses are refractions. This would be more compatible with Vedanta but not with the non-theistic view of Buddhism. But again, there are many Wiccans with many different views. Some of those views about the gods and goddesses might be compatible with Buddhism, many might not.
Well, that is enough for now.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Today over on on arbn Marc Strumpf posted this made-up dialogue and I found it funny enough that I just had to share it here (hint, this is even funnier if you imagine that Taisekiji's voice is that of Cartman from South Park):
Here is the conversation between Taisekiji and the rest of Nichiren
Buddhism when they unveiled the so called "Dai-Gohonzon" two hundred
plus years after Nichiren's lifetime:
Taisekiji:
We have the one supreme object of worship for all mankind. All other Gohonzons are lesser and all others must be connected to it to have any power at all. Bow down please..
The rest of Nichiren Buddhism:
Excuse us but we have never heard of such a thing. Please show us what
you have said is true
Taisekiji:
No. You must take our word for it
The rest of Nichiren Buddhism:
But Taisekiji is a very small and pardon us, an unsuccessful family
Temple way out in the country. You must surely understand how
implausible it is that no one has heard of such a grandiose thing as
this. Dont you have anything at all to back this up?
Taisekiji:
We do, but you can't see it, nor will we allow you to even look at the
"DaiGohonzon" itself. Bow down now please
The rest of Nichiren Buddhism:
We think not, not without some plausible evidence.
Taisekiji:
So you're not going to bow down then?
The rest of Nichiren Buddhism:
No, But thank you anyway
Taisekiji:
No matter, you have done nothing to prove our claim is not what we say
it is, so you are defeated and have separated yourself from Nichiren's
dearest intention and you shall all fall to hell... Last chance to Bow down
The rest of Nichiren Buddhism:
Nuts (that means no)
The title is taken from the song of the same name by the Clash, and the chorus is:
Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An’ if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know
Of course the song is about some guy dating some girl (who probably has borderline personality syndrom) but some of the lyrics could also apply to many who are thinking of leaving various Buddhist organizations. I am actually not one of those people - but I have been asked, quite earnestly by more than one sincere Buddist, "why do you stay with Nichiren Shu?"
Now my answer is that there is a bond between my sensei and I that I absolutely do not wish to break. I have been blessed to have a sensei like the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, and I regret that I have not written more about him and the advice and guidance and direction that he has given me or ensured has been provided to me by others (and to have a sensei who knows how to delegate or refer a disciple to others is also a great and rare blessing). My sensei, far from ever trying to contol me or narrow my horizons has often challenged me and opened my horizons and taught me to stop overlooking things and people that my preoccupations sometimes have caused me to not pay enough attention to. For me, being in Nichiren Shu is about a personal relationship with my sensei.
It is not restricted to that however. There is also the San Jose Temple as a whole, and the spiritual fellowship that I have found there with the Matsuda family and all the other people who I see there from week to week. The mutual support, encouragement, and even challenges that I meet there is what the Sangha is all about. I have never felt restricted or hemmed in or exploited by my Sangha - though I have had differences with individual members. But even learning to amicably work out personal difficulties is part of what a healthy Sangha is all about. I can honestly say that I have felt empowered by my Sangha. And it is not just me. When my sensei bestows the Omandala on new members, he says to them, "Now let us learn and practice the Dharma together."
Then there is Nichiren Shu as a whole. I personally have received a lot of encouragement and support from the Shumuin (Nichiren Shu H.Q.) and personally from the many teachers I have had the pleasure and blessing to have been taught by in Japan. I acknowledge that some have had misunderstandings with them or have been extremely frustrated in trying to work with them. I have, unfortunately, gotten myself into the middle of some of those cases of misunderstanding. I have also had my misunderstandings and frustrations. On the whole, however, I feel that there are many caring individuals in the Shumuin and also in NONA (the Nichiren Order of North America) who really do care about propagation and the spread of Odaimoku and most importantly about peace, healing and the enlightenment of all beings. There are indeed some problems and certainly some cultural and language barriers, but I believe that on the whole there is a spirit of bodhicitta and compassion at work among those I have met and dealt with (including some I have had misunderstandings/miscommunications with that were later worked out). So I really don't see the Nichiren Shu as any more or less dysfunctional than any other traditional school of Japanese Buddhism, but I do see and have met with caring individuals who really are trying to make the system work for everyone.
There there are the resources that Nichiren Shu has made available. Maybe it is still difficult for some, esp. outside the USA or Japan, to access these materials, but people are working on it. The Nichiren Buddhist International Center was created with the idea that it would be a resource center for all Nichiren Buddhists all over the world (and not just Nichiren Shu members). Liturgy books and CD and even DVDs have been made so that people can learn to do gongyo and chant Odaimoku. Nichiren's authenticated writings are being translated in conjunction with the University of Hawaii. Books introducing the Lotus Sutra (Introduction to the Lotus Sutra by Shinjo Suguro) and Nichiren Shu teachings and practice (Awakening to the Lotus), and a translation of the Lotus Sutra (by Senchu Murano) are available. And there are more such projects in the works, including gosho study guides. And there ae regular publications like the Nichiren Shu News and the Bridge newsletter which are both accessible online at www.nichiren-shu.org If nothing else, I think Nichiren Buddhists should avail themselves of these resources to learn more about the practice, teachings and faith of Nichiren Buddhism. I am immensely grateful for these efforts and I am honored to have been able to help with them.
And of course there is the doctrine and practice. I have no qualms about the doctrine and practice of Nichiren Shu. Some people think I do. Some people think I have gone over the line. I think that is because of their own narrow ideas about what Nichiren Buddhism is all about. It is telling that no Japanese ministers have ever criticized me, and it is not because no one is paying attention. In fact, I have even been asked to help in writing articles for Nichiren Shu News on doctrinal issues like ichinen sanzen, and I have been and am still involved in the translation of some of the gosho for the University of Hawaii publications. This is not necessarily an endorsement of my views, but my point is that my views are not seen as all that radical and I have never felt marginalized nor have I ever felt the need to compromise my integrity on doctrinal issues. In fact, the Nichiren Shu has often presented me with things that have caused me to reevaluate my positions or at least to recognize that I cannot be dogmatic about them.
I am sure there are other factors that I could list (I should mention that in NONA there are actual elections for important leadership positions including bishop and president for four year terms, and that temples have boards that the ministers are accountable to, and that there is financial accountability on al levels) but the bottom line is that the Nichiren Shu is the specific Sangha that I am a member of, and this has not been a restriction but rather a platform for reaching out to the greater Sangha of other Nichiren Buddhists and other Buddhists in general. I have never felt the need to leave my Sangha which has been a spiritual home and spiritual family to me. I am saddened when others act as though my Sangha is a prison or a straightjacket when I do not find that to be the case. I think it comes from a mistaken idea that a Sangha can be perfect. In reading the Vinaya, it is apparent that even the Sangha immediately surrounding Shakyamuni Buddha during his lifetime was not perfect. So I do not expect perfection, but I expect that the Sangha I am a member of will help rather than hinder my spiritual development and the ability of the members to help each other and society. Everyone must judge this on their own of course.
Now, let me turn to a different direction - I have left two Sanghas previously. Why did I do so?
In the first case, I left Soka Gakkai (at the time still the lay organization of Nichrien Shoshu) back in '88. Why did I do that? First the positives - I did meet and practice with sincere and positive individuals who did help me reevaluate my attitudes and to grow spiritually. Essentially they helped me begin overcome my own arrogance and condescension. They also helped me begin a daily practice and the self-discipline to sustain it. The SGI at that time did provide translations with many of the gosho, translations that I still avail myself of to this day. They also provided a spirit of comeraderie, empowerment, and hope that was very beneficial. So why did I leave?
1. Along with the positive elements there were many who were clearly suffering from crippling neurosis and their dogmatic and even superstitious attachments to elements of Nichiren Shoshu teaching and practice was exacerbating and not helping them.
2. While they were indeed trying to get me to overcome my own personal egotism and arrogance they were trying to replace it with a corporate egotism and arrogance. One time I was told that simply because I practiced daimoku that made me smarter than all my college theology and philosophy professors (men that to this day I have profound respect for as my great mentors at that time).
3. Instead of opening people's minds and horizons people were being told or gettnig the idea that reading other religious works like the Tao Te Ching or even the non-SGI translation of the Threefold Lotus Sutra was slanderous. Christianity and Judaism were constantly derided as dirty negative religions that only caused suffering. I was once asked to present a talk at the community center on faith but was taken off the schedule on the day of the even because I had referred to the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich's definition of faith. Furthermore, it was made clear to me that "seeking spirit" did not mean questioning or reading outside sources but only the willingness to seek and abide by SGI materials and the guidance of SGI leaders. Instead of freedom to think for yourself I found superstition and dogma.
4. I found that the Nichiren Shoshu teachings we were taught did not match the criteria of the three proofs. They did not match the sutras, in some cases were dogmatic rather than based on reason or evidence, and I was not seeing a community of buddhas as actual proof but a community of needy and controlling or controlled people. Even the gosho did not bear out the Nichiren Shoshu doctrines when I read them without bias.
5. When it became clear that I was going to continue to think for myself and even to share my views with others (this was before the internet so I wrote an essay and distributed it to fellow members and the leaders I knew), I was at first "disinvited to future meetings" and then at the request of my district allowed back in on the condition that "you don't talk to anyone because we don't want you confusing the other members." I actually put up with this indignity for a meeting or two and then realized that this kind of authoritarianism and lack of compassion was not the Buddhism I was looking for. At that point I left to see what other Buddhist Sanghas were like.
That is when I found Won Buddhism, a Korean New Religion with a temple in Philadelphia. I became the student of Rev. Bokin Kim. That is when I discovered what Buddhism is like for most American Buddhists - a non-dogmatic, compassionate, and open-minded type of spiritual practice. No paranoia or sectarianism or arrogance or dogmatism. The emphasis was on sitting meditation with some chanting (of sutras and the Korean version of nembutsu) to round it out. Compassion and ethics in daily life were emphasized as well. Study consisted not only of the particular doctrines of Won Buddhism but of the heritage of Buddhism in general. One was not discouraged but actually invited to question and ponder and think for oneself to really understand and assimilate the Dharma into one's life. This was a true breath of fresh air. In many ways it was the Buddhism I had originally been looking for. It felt like what Shakyamuni Buddha had in mind, and had the kind of spirit exemplified in the Zen stories that had inspired me in high school. What is more, even as Rev. Kim was helping me establish a strong sitting meditation practice and to learn about the history and heritage of Korean Buddhism she encouraged me to continue doing gongyo.
But in the end I left Won Buddhism for Nichiren Shu. What then was wrong with Won Buddhism? Well, the simple answer is nothing - I just like Nichiren Buddhism better as it was my first Dharma Gate and I have a stronger karmic affinity for it. But there are some other more substantial reasons.
1. Won Buddhism is a New Religion and as such a simplificaton of the Dharma in some ways. They are open to what it taught in the Buddhist canon, but traditional Buddhist teachings and practice are not their emphasis. So for instance they use the Heart Sutra for their daily practice and their founder's attention was focused on the Diamond Sutra. From my point of view these are provisional sutras emphasizing emptiness (ku) and do not take in the view of the provisional existence (ke) that the Flower Garland exemplifies, or the integration of the Three Truths in the Middle Way (Chu) that is taught in the T'ien-t'ai school and by Nichiren. So in terms of their doctrines I did learn a lot from them, things which I think Nichiren Buddhists would do well to consider, but on the whole I prefered what I see as the more developed T'ien-t'ai teachings and the synthesis in the direct practice of the Lotus Sutra provided by Nichiren.
2. The Gohonzon of Won Buddism is the empty circle representing the Dharmakaya or as they say the Mind of the Buddha. But again I believe the Gohonzon of Nichiren showing the illumination of the ten worlds by the Odaimoku is more holistic and also based on the insight that the Gohonzon is not just the Dharmakaya (the ultimate truth) but the unity of the trikaya as the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha (the unity of the ulitmate, the ideal and the historial). So again, I find that Won Buddhism is focused on a provisional insight and not the more developed and integrated insight of Nichiren Buddhism. On the other hand they do emphasize that all being have Buddha-nature, and that all beings can attain buddhahood here and now through faith and practice. And I have found that Won Buddhists both here and in Korea (I visited their college and temples there back in '89) really did walk their talk. So their Gohonzon may be provisional, but I think their understanding and way of living points to the ultimate. Still, I prefer the calligraphic Omandal of Nichiren and what it represents.
3. The use of nembsutsu was also an issue with me. Though the nembutsu practiced by Korean and Chinese is not the exclusive nembutsu of Honen or Shinran, I still feel that the Odaimoku has superceded it as the direct practice of the Lotus Sutra. Furthermore, I think the Odaimoku better embodies the spirit of Sot'aesan, the founder of Won Buddhism, himself. He used the nembutsu because its practice was so pervasive among popular Korean Buddhism, but like the Zen Masters he felt the need to hedge it around with all kinds of qualifications so as to undercut the popular pious associations that led to dependence on a buddha as a deity outside oneself and the view that buddhahood is something that only happens after one dies. Sot'aesan's own views were much more in line with what the Odaimoku represents - here and now is where we attain buddhahood and that the Eternal Buddha is not other than ourselves (but not simply our 'self' either).
4. Won Buddhism takes Sot'aesan, their founder, as the new buddha of a new era. As in Nichiren Shoshu, there is the idea that the traditional Buddhism of Shakyamuni Buddha has had its day and that now is the time for a new turning of the Wheel of Dharma. Rev. Kim had downplayed this, but it was becoming apparent to me that this was the position of a sizeable and strong faction in Won Buddhism, and I believe that the current prime master of the school holds this position. But I am adamant about taking refuge in the traditional Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha because it is the teaching and example of Shakyamuni Buddha that I find is the most trustworthy model, and that all others are derivations or specific applications of what Shakyamuni Buddha set in motion. I could see this would eventually lead to an irreconcileable conflict between them and I, even though I have the greatest respect for Sot'aesan's teaching and example and I periodically read the Scripture of Won Buddhism that contains his teachnings and anecdotes about his life and I always find it edifying (in fact I recently helped the Won Buddhists edit some additional discourses of Sot'aesan for an upcoming publication). Anyway, for me, Buddism is about Shakyamuni Buddha. Like Nichiren I will accept no replacements.
5. Like other New Religions from East Asia, Won Buddhism is a top down centralized organization where ministers are appointed and assigned or reassigned as in a monastic order and not in keeping with the more democratic models of American churches where there is a board of directors who decide who they will accept or reject. Now there are strengths and weaknesses in both systems, and I also may not be correct in my impression of how Won Buddism operates (I never really got involved in organization stuff), but that is my impression. I much prefer the confederation system of Nichiren Shu, which is an amalgamation of otherwise independent lineages operating in a big tent atmosphere where the lay people have a role (sometimes a great role) in determing how the temples are operated.
One other note - I do not consider myself anti-SGI or even anti-Shoshu (not anymore anyway) though I disagree with certain doctrinal positions that they uphold and I feel a responsibility to publicly speak up for the mainstream teachings of Nichiren Buddhism. Other things I do not like about SGI or Shoshu have to do with internal traditions, policies, and organization and I figure that is really my business as I am not a member and I have already voted with my feet and wallet. Apart from the organization and official doctrines of those groups I welcome cordial relations with SGI and even Shoshu members, and I hope that we can be good neighbors, learn from each other, and recognize that in 90% of our teachings and practices we are in agreement. I hope to continue to have good dialogues and friendships with SGI members (and even Shoshu members) in a spirit of mutual respect if not perfect agreement.
As for Won Buddhism, I still like them a lot and maintain good personal relations with them, and have even helped them out as a kind of private contractor (for translations and revisions). My leaving them should not be construed as any kind of disaproval or indictment, and in fact I feel an immense debt of gratitude to them and particularly to Rev. Kim. I simply opted for a different kind of Buddhism that I find more compelling, though that does not negate the many things I have and continue to learn from them.
So these are my ruminations about why I am with the Sangha I am with and why I left the other Sanghas I was part of. This is in answer to those who keep wondering why I stay with Nichiren Shu despite their perception (a mistaken one I think) that I am somehow not fitting in or that I have somehow transcended the need for it (I reiterate that I think this is a mistaken perception). It is also offered to those who may feel alienated in the Sanghas they are in, or who are wondering whether staying in or leaving a particular Sangha would be the best thing to do to maintain one's integrity, convictions, and spiritual growth. So these are the things that I have worked through in relation to leaving or staying with a particular Sangha.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei