Today, US District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the imposition of "Intelligent Design" in biology classrooms in Dover Pennsylvania was unconstitional. He also stated that several members of the school board which had done the imposing had "repeately lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs." It speaks well of the people of Dover that back in November they voted out that schoolboard (all except one member who was not up for reelection). "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," Judge Jones wrote in his 139-page opinion.
There are other fronts in this battle between legitimate science and fundamentalist religion in Georgia and Kansas, but I will leave that for the moment because what I really want to write about is why I have chosen sides and what it is that upsets me about the attempt by fudnamentalist Christians to subvert our school systems.
To begin with, "evolution" and the "big bang" and other such things are indeed theories. And theories are always open to change as new discoveries are made and new data is collected. That is the way science works. These theories are models of how things are in real life (as opposed to some fantasy la la land of the kind you find written up in ancient tribal myths and legends - including Hebrew and Arab myths and legends). These models are ways of best accounting for all the facts as we know them. We know how the various elements that make up this world work, and how long it takes for certain radioactive elements to decay, and thus can do things like carbon dating. This alone tells us the world is very very old. And extrapolating from what is known about the stars and their activities as far as we can measure them - we know that the universe is at least 16 billion years old or something like that (I haven't checked these figures since I was in grad school). Now if someone thinks these models are inadequate, they are going to have to do their homework and come up with a different model that can account for all the facts, but simply asserting one's favorite tribal myths on the grounds of blind belief or wishful thinking will not cut it. And trying to sneak such beliefs into a class room to the detriment of science does no credit to such beliefs and instead just undermines our educational system.
Now I have a great fondness for myths, legends, folklore, and such. My recent book Lotus World: An Illustrated Guide to the Gohonzon (privately published by the San Jose Nichiren Buddhist Temple) is a recounting of such lore from India, China, and Japan as connected with the practice of Nichiren Buddhism. I do not find any of it literally true (well a bit of it was actual history but not much) but I do find it very meaningful. At times I read to my daughter from the myths of the Vikings and the Greeks, Hindus, and sometimes even children's versions of Bible stories because they are charming, exciting, fantastic, and also meaningful. But I make sure that she knows that these are not literal events anymore than the Harry Potter movies or the Chronicles of Narnia. I would be very upset if someone came into my daughters classroom when she was supposed to be learning science and tried to teach her their myths and blind beliefs under the guise of science, reason, and logic. I do not want my daughter's education compromised by blind belief and religious fanaticism and distorted views of science.
Now when it comes to Intelligent Design, I have no problem with it as a philosophy or system of speculative metaphysics. I am even sympathetic to the idea that life is not an accident but that there is some selfless and compassionate all-encompassing intelligence at work. Some forms of Buddhism call this the One Mind or the Dharmakaya (though these are not human being writ large nor creator deities in any commonly understood sense). The point being that life originates from causes and conditions - but is there some originating cause or universal condition that gives rise to the system of causes and conditions? I think this is a legitimate question. However, it is a metaphysical question and not a scientific one - because it is not a model that accounts for facts and things that can be observed but rather a proposition about why there are facts and observable phenomena in the first place. Since such a proposition goes beyond facts, it can not be either verified or disproved by facts. So Intelligent Design is basically a metaphysical proposition that one can either believe or not. But it is not science and should not be mistaken for science.
Buddhism does teach that when it comes to phenomena, nothing arises due to a single cause. Everything that we experience arises from a multitude of causes and conditions. This is something that we can verify for ourselves by just reflecting on our real life. So in the actual network of causes and conditions that make up real life as we actually experience it, not any of it can be traced back to a single cause or creator, though scientists have been searching for something called the "unifed field theory" they have not yet found it. But was there ever a time when there were no causes and conditions? When there was nothing at all? Was there a time when causes and coditions initially got started? There may or may not be such an originating moment. There may or may not be something that got things started or that keeps them going in such a way. But the Buddha dismissed all such questions as not tending to edification. In other words, the Buddha saw such metaphysical speculations as a distraction from real life and real life issues - from the need to understand suffering, to abandon the causes of suffering, to realize the cessation of suffering, and to follow the Middle Way that leads to the cessation of suffering. For the Buddha, getting lost in the thickets and briars of metaphysics when one has not dealt with the key existential issues of our own life and death is to be like a man hit with a poisoned arrow who insists on knowing who shot him, and with what kind of arrow, and what kind of feather is the arrow made of, and so on before having the arrow pulled out and the wound cleaned. The Buddha taught that such a man would die before his questions were ever answered. So the point is that we must not waste time with metaphysics or with unprovable propositions, but rather with dealing with the real issue of our life. Truly religious people, according to the Buddha, would not waste time on such things as intelligent design but rather will look to the true nature of their own life here and now in order to awaken to a more selfless and compassionate way of living.
Arguing for or against intelligent design is largely a waste of time from a Buddhist point of view. But one thing that is not a waste of time is knowing not to confuse fact and scientific theory with speculative metaphysics and belief systems. To confuse facts and beliefs is to give in to delusion and prejudice. To discern that which we can actually come to know through direct observation and valid inference that takes account of facts as we know them from assertions based on tradition or wishful thinking is to be able to have a mind that is rooted in reality and able to see through delusion to the way things really are. Intelligent design may or may not be true, but regardless it is not science because it goes beyond facts, instead of simply accounting for them.
Buddhism also may or may not be true, and also does not belong in a science classroom. But like science, Buddhism warns against the distraction of metaphysics (though granted it takes some metaphysical assertions for granted but its essential truths do not rest on their validity), and like science Buddhism encourages seeing into the true nature of things just as they are, and not just as we would like them to be.
One last thought: Buddhism itself is not as cold and impersonal as some people, including myself at times, make it out to be. While there is no single tribal deity that Buddhist are obliged to worship, there are models of love and compassion of cosmic proportions. And in fact these models of love and compassion, the buddhas and bodhisattvas, are in fact unified in the Dharmakaya Buddha. Dharmakaya Buddha is the true nature of reality. Dharmakaya Buddha is not a person but is not impersonal either. Without Dharmakaya Buddha, things would not be as they are - all causes and conditions are the phenomenal face of the ineffable. Without Dharmakaya Buddha there would be no phenomenal expressions of love and compassion by the buddhas and bodhisattvas and other saints and benevolent forces. All the virtues and merits that we can conceive of are expressions of Dharmakaya Buddha, and Dharmakaya Buddha is our own true nature. We project all these virtues and merits on our tribal deities and saviors, but they can be found most intimately within ourselves, because the Dharmakaya Buddha is nowhwere and everywhere and so closer to us than we can possibly imagine. Perhaps this bit about Dharmakaya Buddha is where Buddhism does verge into metaphysics - for the concept of an ineffable reality that expresses selfless compassion in, through, and as all things certainly goes beyond brute facts and mundane experience as much as intelligent design. But Buddhism does not assert that one must assert it, rather, one must awaken to it for oneself.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Once again I have found that someone else, this time a Christian minister, has expressed what is on my mind and in my heart better than I have been able to:
The Immorality Deception-Great Talk by Congregational Minister
Dr. Robin Meyers
Oklahoma University Peace Rally
November 14, 2004
As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City , and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University.
But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor. Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian. We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about.
Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:
When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral. -- When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.
When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.
When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.
When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.
When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.
When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva convention, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral.
When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.
When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.
When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.
When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.
When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.
When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.
When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.
When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a" compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith -- compassion -- and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.
When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.
When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.
I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war -- I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong -- the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power
This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It's your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.
Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists -- so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith.
And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race -- and thus the greatest failure of faith.
There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for -- absolutely nothing.
And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb? Indeed How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.
Time to march again my friends. Time to commit acts of civil disobedience. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to participate in the madness. My generation finally stopped a tragic war. You can too!
"Only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars." Martin Luther King,
Last night my friend Taigen and other Buddhists and people of conscience travelled to the gates of San Quentin to protest the death penalty and specifically the execution of Tookie William, the founder of the Crips. For my part, I am also opposed to the death penalty in principle but I was not able to stand vigil there, so I did gongyo at the time he was being put to death. So now I would like to express my general thoughts and feelings about the death penalty.
To begin with I want to agree that many of these people don't just deserve to die but actually deserve much more horrendous fates if one really wants to balance the anguish and destruction of life that they themselves perpetrated. I am convined that the gruesome descriptions of the hell-realms and hungry ghost realms in traditional Buddhist cosmology were not so much the product of any literal view of the afterlife but were an attempt to both metaphorically describe the anguish and suffering that people feel in this life and also to satisfy people's wish that in the afterlife there will be a balancing of the scales. So, for instance, someone like Saddam Hussein, who is responisible for the torture and murder of untold number of people and the use of nerve gas on women and children deserves to literally fall into the hells I describe in Lotus World. In Christianity, Thomas Aquinas and others have said that part of the compensation for the just will be that from heaven they will be able to contemplate the richly deserved torments of the damned.
But all of that just deserts and comeuppance and contemplation of richly deserved torment and damnation is far away from the true spirit of Buddha Dharma and the great compassion that does not discriminate. From the Buddhist point of view all of us have the seeds of hell within us, and but for the grace of causes and conditons those seeds may come into fruition in our own actions and our own comeuppance in the course of innumerable eons of rebirth. From the traditional Buddhist point of view we have all been hell-dwellers and barring our liberation we will again become hell-dwellers. As Christians say, "there are none who are without sin" and "their hearts have been evil from the very beginning." The Buddhist teaching of the three poisons and the mutual possession of the ten worlds (whereby even those in the human realm have a bit of hell within them - but also heaven and buddhahood) is making the same point as the Christian doctrine of "original sin" - that all of us from the unfathomable beginning have been enmeshed in unwholesome attitudes, conduct, and the suffering that entails. It does not even matter if there are literal hells to fall into, or heavens to fall away from. It is an existential truth that if we are honest we feel within the depths of our lives.
So frmo the ultimate point of view it is not that some of us are deserving of death and damnation and some of us aren't. From the Christian and Buddhist point of view we all have the seeds of death and damnation inside of us - it is part of who we are. The difference between a hell-dweller and a Buddha is that a hell-dweller is not aware of this and instead is driven by it and blames everyone and everything but themselves and they feel cheated by life. A Buddha, on the other hand, is comletely aware of those seeds and in that awareness and understanding of their own depths arouses a compassion for all those who have such seeds - which encompasses all beings and their environments. So in the one case a confused and selfish anguish, in the other a compassionate and selfless awareness of our actual condition.
The Buddha did not believe that people were intrinsicially good or intrinsically evil. In fact he did not talk in terms of good and evil so much as in terms of wholesome and unwholesome causes and conditions. Causes and conditions encompass all things, but in terms of our human lives we are able to awaken to and take responsibility for the wholesomeness or lack thereof of the causes set in motion by our intention, speech, and actions. Sometimes we will water and cultivate hellish seeds, sometimes hungry ghost seeds, sometimes the seeds of humane consideration and rationality, sometimes seeds of compassion or even perfect and complete awakening. But no one is intrinsically good or evil, but all are able to change the complex of causes and conditions that compose our lives.
The Buddha believed that this human life was the most precious state of all - because it was as a human being that one was not overwhelmed by the suffering we have undergone in the hells and other realms, nor are we lulled by the false security we have undergone in the heavenly realms. So it is here and now as rational, self-reflective human beings that we can acknowledge, account for, take responsibility for, and change the complex of our causes and conditions. We do not have the right to take this precious opportunity away from anyone, nor do we even have the right to take it away from those who take it away from others.
From the Buddhist point of view, two wrongs do not make a right. Piling unwholesomeness atop unwholesomeness does not create a wholesome situation. Rather the seeds of vengeance, bitterness, hatred, and anguish are simply cultivated all the more by unecessarily killing those who kill. Furthermore, from the point of view of Buddhism we are not dispatching people to a final just judgement because in Buddhism the judgement happens in each moment of karmic unfolding - that means right here and now. So killing a murderer is in a sense the just fruition of their karma, but they simply go on to another life where they simply continue their ignorant, selfish, and destructive patterns; whereas we have now watered our own hellish seeds in order to strike back at them. So they go on as they were and we become worse. This judgement happens right here and now in the depths of our lives and its ramificiations extend into all future lives and the life of society and the environment.
From the point of view of the Nirvana Sutra, authorized lay people (rulers and peace keepers) have the duty to maintain the peace, and can use weapons but must do their best not to use them lethally. See the section called "Should Slanderers be Put to Death" in my Rissho Ankoku Ron commentary for more on that. But there is an even deeper and more Dharmic duty to ackowledge that even the worst of us have the nature of buddhahood and given the opportunity (which killing takes away irrevocably) can awaken to and express that nature. The Buddha did teach that we could go mad trying to guess another person's karma, in other words what they do or do not deserve, but that it is always in accord to pay respects to the Buddha-nature of all beings. In the case of dangerous criminals (and dictators) they do need to be incarcerated and prevented from doing any harm, but once rendered harmless if we are not to sink to their level we should not be seeking vengeance nor should we seek to torment or harm them but rather to find a way to awaken their humanity if not a more complete awakening. In fact, to harm, torment, or kill just confirms them in their own brutal way of relating to the world, but to see to awaken humanity is to seek to awaken conscience and true remorse and true accountability (which, btw, was the overarching theme of Joss Whedon's show "Angel").
In the life of Shakyamuni Buddha it is said that he encountered a serial killer named Angulimala. In fact, Angulimala had killed 999 people in order to present a gift of a 1,000 finger-bone necklace to an evil guru. So Angulimala was actually a religious terrorist and no mere gangster or thug. He was even going to kill his own mother because he could not find the 1,000th victim. But then the Buddha came along and Angulimala tried to catch him. But Angulimala could not reach the Buddha no matter how fast he ran, and regardless of the Buddha's dignfied steady pace. Finally Angulimala yelled "Stop! Stop!" The Buddha turned to face the killer and said, "I stopped long ago. When will you stop?" Faced by the fearless dignity and composure of the Buddha, Angulimala stopped stunned. Realizing the Buddha was a spiritul teacher he then realized that "stopping" the Buddha referred to was the cycle of unwholesome deeds, suffering, and anguish leading to more unwholesome deeds. Right then, it is said, Angulimala realized that he had found a true friend and a true teacher. He renounced himself and not just his murderous deeds and ideology. He became a monk, and on the Buddha's testimony was given a reprieve from King Bimbisara. The people, however, lynched him all the same, but he died realizing that he had transformed the seeds of hell inside himself and that being lynched was actually getting off easy compared to his misdeeds. He died a liberated man, but those who committed the lynching had uknowingly killed an arhat (an awakened saint) - one of the five heinous deeds which leads directly to the Avichi (Uninterrupted) Hell in the next life, whereas if they had let go of their bitterness and vengefulness and aroused patience and compassion instead they would have entered the path of bodhisattvas and attained the Pure Land in their hearts right there and then.
But this is all a deep teaching and a tall order. It is much easier to want to identify with and act out the part of the Lord who says "Vengeance is mine," but in our case the Lord is not even the just tribal deity known as Indra, but rather the Lord Ego who serves Mara the Tempter.
Regardless the State of California, and therefore all of us, have put to death a man last night. Was he a liberated arhat, a hell-dweller turned prison-bodhisattva, or an unrepentant icchantikka (a person of incorrible disbelief) or just another being like ourselves with hellish seeds and enlightened seeds either of which can be watered and cultivated given time and the right circumstances?
The choice I think we all face now is whether like the Buddha and Angulimala we will choose to stop the unwholesome cycle, or whether we will follow the way of perpetual mutual destruction in the way of the village lynch mob?
I am not advanced enough in my practice to have much personal sympathy for people who have committed heinous crimes, but in priciple I know and agree with the Buddha and Jesus that we should love our enemies, turn the other cheek instead of demanding an eye for an eye, and regardless to regard the Buddha-nature of all beings as the true face that transcends conditional judgement and condemnation.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Here is something that I should have put into Lotus World but I only thought about it after the book was ready for printing. It is actually something that I presented in a talk at the San Jose Temple a long time ago and then put on the back burner. The original notes were a series of quotes from a Korean guide to T'ien-t'ai teachings and a survey of Chinese Buddhism, but I will spare you those and just present my own reflections on the ethical dimension of the ten worlds:
Hells: In Lotus World I characterize this as the state of "those who are obsessed with their own suffering. They are in a state characterized by intense anguish, lashing out in unthinking rage, self-pity, despair, paranoia, and self-destructiveness." Based on such motivations the hell dwellers engage in killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, slandering, abusive speech, irresponsible speech, greed, anger, and wrong views.
Note: I understand sexual misconduct to be any sexual activity that involves minors or which would involve the other forms of unwholesome conduct like physically, mentally or emotionally harming oneself or others (connected to killing), or exploiting or taking what is not given, or sexual conduct that will lead to dishonesty, and so on. But basically it is my conviction that whatever forms of affection are shown between responsible consenting adults is their own business and they themselves must accept the karma (i.e. consequences) for their actions and that this is not a matter for legislation or religious prudery. If certain zealous religious types were as avid to crusade against unjust wars and social inequality, greed, and exploitation as they are to regulate people's sex lives or impose bad science on the public school system then this would perhaps be a much more just and peaceful world.
Further note: Irresponsible speech seems to be a catch-all category which could indicate people who talk incessantly and annoy others, or those who interrupt others, or don't give others a chance to speak, or who make promises they can't keep, or who talk about stuff that they know nothing about, or gossip, or irrelevant and distracting chatter, etc...
Yet another note: I understand wrong views to be any views which deny that unimpaired fully mature human beings have free-will and are responsible for their actions. The Buddha categorically rejected as unwholesome and pernicious the views of his contemporaries which advocated materialism, nihilism, fatalism, predestination or any other speculative or dogmatic view which would undercut free-will and personal responsibility.
Hungry Ghosts: In Lotus World I define the hungry ghosts are those who are "obsessed with satisfying a craving that can never be quenched. They are in a state characterized by self-destructive addiction or fixation; the desire itself has become an unceasing source of torment." Because of this they engage in killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, slandering, abusive speech, irresponsible speech, greed, anger, and wrong views.
Animals: In Lotus World, animals are described as " all those who are ruled by instinct. They do not show any forethought but live only for immediate gratification of their desires. In addition, with few exceptions, they live by the rule of the stronger over the weaker. This is the world of predator and prey, territoriality, and rule by the alpha male. Animals are impulsive and heedless, and allow themselves to be dominated by instinct over reason regardless of the consequences. Because of this they engage in killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying slandering, abusive speech, irresponsible speech, greed, anger, and wrong views.
Fighting Demons: In Lotus World, the fighting demons are those who "are in a state characterized by jealousy, envy, anger, aggression, and an inability to compromise with others motivated by insecurity or a feeling of inferiority." Now the fighting demons can resort to the ten courses of unwholesome conduct that the hell-dwellers, hungry ghosts, and animals do (killing, stealing, etc.) but according to Korean T'ien-t'ai monk Chegwan they actually base their arrogance and pride on their self-righteous observance of the five Confucian virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, faithfulness, and wisdom (for more detail on these see the chapters on the Confucian Nichiren in my Rissho Ankoku Ron commentary) as well as the ten courses of wholesome conduct which is refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, etc...
Human Beings: In Lotus World, humanity "is a state of characterized by enlightened self-interest, the ability to apply reason and insight in order to attain desired objectives both for one's own sake and for those who one cares about." Chegwan notes that human beings are those who observe the five Confucian virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, faithfulness, and wisdom as well as the five major precepts of ceasing to kill, steal, engage in sexual misconduct, lying, or using intoxicants that cloud the mind and lower the inhibitions.
Heavens: In Lotus World the gods are described as "in a state of heedless bliss, for they have at least temporarily attained their goals. But this is also a state prone to complacency, self-satisfaction, and even self-righteouness. They tend to be preoccupied with their own pleasure and success." The six heavens of the realm of desire are attained by observing the ten courses of wholesome conduct (refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, slandering, abusive speech, irresponsible speech, greed, anger, and wrong views) and also through the positive virtue of generosity and specifically the support of those who teach and uphold ethics and virtue. The eighteen heavens of the realm of form can be attained by the combination of the ten courses of wholesome conduct and the positive cultivation of deep states of meditative concentration - esp. on such things as loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. The four heavens of the formless realm are attained by a combination of the ten courses of wholesome conduct and the cultivation of the formless concentrations on space, consciousness, nothingness, and neither perception nor non-perception. In any case, the ten courses of wholesome conduct are the basis for the positive virtues and spiritual cultivations which elevate one to a heavenly existence. Note that unlike the five major precepts that are connected with the human world, the ten courses of wholesome conduct include not just external behavior but the purification of the interior life by cutting off greed, anger, and wrong views. So ethics alone are not enough, but a necessary condition nontheless. And even beyond the ten courses of wholesome conduct, specifilly spiritual and sefless positive qualities like generosity or loving-kindness must also be cultivated.
Voice-Hearers: These are the disciples of the Buddha who hear and then cultivate the four noble truths and the eightfold path. While the monks and nuns who exemplify the "hearers" take on hundreds of precepts, they all basically boil down to the ten novice precepts which spell out the monastic lifestyle. These are: (1) no killing, (2) no stealing, (3) no sexual relations, (4) no lying, (5) no drinking, (6) no use of perfumes, garlands, or personal adornments, (7) no partaking in singing, dancing, or play and no watching or listening to them, (8) no use of luxurious high seats or beds, (9) no eating at improper times, (10) no accepting of treasures or of coins or objects of gold and silver. All the 250+ precepts of the Vinaya are basically derivatives of these or else they deal with matters of etiquette and monastic procedures. These precepts embrace, then, not just ethics but etiquette and deportment and generally do not deal with interior purification. Rather, they spell out the kind of simplicity and ethical standards that one who is endeavoring to transcend the world should live by.
Privately-Awakened Ones: Since these by definition awaken on their own and not as part of the Sangha or under the instructions of a Buddha there are no specific precepts. However, since their awakening is the same as that of the Voice-Hearers, one may assume that they also follow a life of simplicity and virtuous conduct as appropriate to their circumstances. This category is basically a designation for all those who have or who may attain awakening outside of an explicity connection with Buddhism.
Bodhisattvas: The bodhisattvas are those who aspire to attain buddhahood for the sake of all beings. They are said to follow the ten major bodhisattva precepts: 1) no killing, (2) no stealing, (3) no sexual misconduct, (4) no false speech, (5) no selling intoxicants, (6) no speaking about the offenses of the great assembly, (7) no disparaging others and praising oneself, (8) no stinginess, (9) no harboring anger, (10) no slandering the Triple Jewel. Notice that these are very similar to the five major precepts and the ten courses of wholesome conduct. More positively, bodhisattvas strive to cultivate the six perfections of generosity, discipline, patience, energy, concentration, and wisdom.
Buddhas: The Buddha are the source of the precepts, and they themselves live in accord with their perfect wisdom and so do not need to adhere to a predetermined code or set standard simply because they are the themselves the standard. It can be said, however, that they uphold the Diamond Chalice Precept - which is their awakening to the Wonderful Dharma and thus living in accord with that Wonderful Dharma which is their own true nature and the true nature of all things. When applying the Diamond Chalice Precept to specific situations all of the many precept traditions are generated. Each specific precept, then, serves to point particular people in particular situations back to the general and sublime principle of the Diamond Chalice Precept. Of course only a Buddha can really observe the Diamond Chalice Precept without flaw, those who have not attained perfect and complete awakening may find that they need the implications of the Diamond Chalice Precept in specific situations and circumstances pointed out to them.
It is my feeling that the various sets of precepts are skillfull means for coming to appreciate how the Wonderful Dharma can manifest itself in our daily interactions. They are the actuality of the living spirit of the Wonderful Dharma. Without that living spirit, the precepts can themselves become a trap. So on the one hand they can elevate those who have made a hell of their lives, or who live like ghosts or beasts by providing some guidelines for refraining from bad causes, making good causes, and restoring some basic sanity and responsibility into their lives. On the other hand, they can lead to the self-righteous pride of the fighting demons, or the complacence of the heavenly beings, or the aloof detachment of the voice-hearers or private-buddhas. Even the bodhisattvas can get so caught up in working for the future attainment of enlightenment in the future that they miss the present living actuality of the Diamond Chalice Precept. With the living spirit of the Diamond Chalice Precept, which is to say an awareness of the present and immediate actuality of the Wonderful Dharma, all of the various sets of precepts become exemplifications of that which contains, gives rise to, and sustains them all. Then each moment of not refraining from bad causes and making good causes as spelled out by the precepts becomes a way of praising and devoting ourselves to the Wonderful Dharma.
I offer all of these thoughts in the hope that they will stimulate further discussion.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
*****************************************************************************************