Hi everyone,
Among Nichiren Buddhists there is the idea that one is not really practicing correctly or fully until one has a calligraphic mandala called the Gohonzon. This is actually a huge misunderstanding that I, as a Nichiren Shu minister, would like to correct. All one needs to do to practice Nichiren Buddhism is to (1) have a sincere trust and conviction in the teaching of the Lotus Sutra that not only are all beings capable of buddhahood but that buddhahood is right here and now, (2) express that conviction through practicing for oneself and others by chanting the title (Daimoku) of the Lotus Sutra which is both a form of meditation and a way of sharing the Dharma with others, (3) deepen one's understanding of the Wonderful Dharma which is your life's true nature through studying the teachings but even more importantly through studying your own life. Whether or not you have a nifty calligraphic scroll to hang on your wall is, if not totally beside the point, at least not as crucial as people mistakenly believe.
To clarify, the word "gohonzon" is a generic word used by all Japanese Buddhists (not just Nichiren Buddhists) to indicate both the ultimate reality and also whatever a particular school or temple uses to portray or depict or indicate that reality. So the gohonzon of Pure Land Buddhism is Amitabha Buddha. In the Zen temple down the street from me the gohonzon enshrined there is a statue of the historical Shakyamuni Buddha.
In Nichiren Buddhism the Gohonzon is one of the Three Great Hidden Dharmas that Nichiren taught are the basis or standard of practice in Nichiren Buddhism as the direct way of practicing the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra. They are the Gohonzon (Focus of Devotion), the Odaimoku (Great Title), and the Kaidan (Precept Platform). Nichiren Shu understands the Gohonzon to mean the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha revealed in chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra who exemplifies the Oneness of the Person and the Dharma; the Odaimoku is the Wonderful Dharma Lotus Flower Sutra (which is Myoho Renge Kyo in Sino-Japanese); and the Kaidan is understood to be wherever we uphold the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra. Actually, all three of these are the One Great Hidden Dharma which is Namu Myoho Renge Kyo (Devotion to the Wonderful Dharma Lotus Flower Sutra). Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is the true nature of the Gohonzon, it is the Dharma that we chant, and it is by upholding it that we become part of the Sangha of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth and their followers. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo for Nichiren Buddhism is the all in all of practice, realization, and actualization when we chant it, awaken to its meaning, and embody its spirit. This means that the Gohonzon is not other than Namu Myoho Renge Kyo itself. And in fact, in Nichiren Shu, a simple inscription of the Odaimoku can be used to depict the Gohonzon, it does not have to be the calligraphic Omandala though that is often enshrined in homes. Even more importantly, the Gohonzon is present whenever the spirit of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is upheld, whether or not there is a concrete depiction.
Now here are some things Nichiren wrote in a letter that is now called "The Swords of Good and Evil":
"The Lotus Sutra is the staff that helps all the Buddhas of the three existences as they set their minds on enlightenment."
"When one uses a staff, one will not fall on treacherous mountain paths or rough roads, and when led by the hand, one will never stumble. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo will be your staff to take you safely over the mountains of death."
This put me in mind of something a Zen Master named Baqiao once said: "If you have a staff, I will give you one; if you don't have a staff I will take one away. "
Odaimoku, the essence of the Lotus Sutra which in Nichiren Buddhism represents the essence of Buddha Dharma, is the authentic staff of Nichiren Buddhism. Not Odaimoku as a concept, or a paper scroll, or a verbal rabbit's foot, or an object of superstitious clinging, or a method of positive thinking, or a magickal tool for getting something else. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo as an expression of living Dharma is to be our staff. So do you have this staff in hand? Or do you have something else? Is your wealth real wealth? Is your poverty real poverty? What do you really have or not have when you talk about Odaimoku or the Gohonzon?
What is this staff? Who is giving or taking it? What is this giving and taking? Who is gaining or losing? What is having or not having?
Here's a conceptual dead-end sidetrack: This also has to do with the three truths of provisional realities, emptiness of self-nature, and the Middle Way. These three different truths are all different ways of pointing to how things are, including ourselves, others, and our environment. These three truths are also exemplified by the staff of Odaimoku. Is it a provisional reality to take up or put down? Is it empty of giving and taking? Is it just the Middle Way that avoids all extreme views? Yes!
Last night, wondering what my nine year old daughter would make of this I caught her attention, leaned across the table and said, "Julie! If you have a staff I will give you one; if you don't have a staff, I will take it away." Then I leaned back to see what she would say or do.
Julie, went, "Hmmm...well..." Then she looked me right in the eye and said, "If you have a staff, I will give you another one." Then she held up both her hands as though holding two staffs. "If you don't have one, I will go to your house to find out where you left it. Then I will take it and bring it to you."
I don't know what a Zen Master would make of that, but I especially like the second part. It would be a case of not having a staff and still having it taken, of having a staff and still being given it.
But Julie did not stop there. She immediately said, "No wait. If you have a stick I will hit you in the face with it! If you don't have a stick I will kick you in the ass!"
Well she had me there. I laughed out loud in approval. I don't know what a Zen Master would make of that, but she certainly seems like a Dragon Girl to me.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
There is a great koan (case study or teaching story) called Hyakujo's Fox. It is the second story in a collection called the Gateless Gate. The link to that story is here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/2.html
Note that the other koans in the Gateless Gate collection are worth contemplating as well, since they are all designed to deepen our understanding and application of various Buddhist teachings. The point is not to just befuddle people, but to spur them to take Buddhist teachings out of the abstract and relate to them more concretely. To assimilate them into our lives so that the enlightened view and actitivy which it gives rise to can become more natural to us.
I would now like to comment on this koan as it has been a very important one to me for years. One of the reasons it is important to me is because since becoming a Nichiren Buddhist back in 1986 I have constantly heard people talk about the law of cause and effect. But then I realized that there are shallow and deep ways of understanding this law and how buddhahood relates to it. This koan is one of many things which opened my eyes to a deeper and more concrete perspective. My comments will follow in bold:
Hyakujo's Fox
Once when Hyakujo delivered some Zen lectures an old man attended
them, unseen by the monks. At the end of each talk when the monks
left so did he. But one day he remained after the had gone, and
Hyakujo asked him: `Who are you?'
The old man replied: `I am not a human being, but I was a human
being when the Kashapa Buddha preached in this world. I was a Zen
master and lived on this mountain. At that time one of my students
asked me whether the enlightened man is subject to the law of
causation. I answered him: "The enlightened man is not subject to
the law of causation." For this answer evidencing a clinging to
absoluteness I became a fox for five hundred rebirths, and I am
still a fox. Will you save me from this condition with your Zen
words and let me get out of a fox's body? Now may I ask you: Is the
enlightened man subject to the law of causation?'
Buddhism assumes that there can only be one Buddha per world per dispensation of the Dharma. Each Buddha rediscovers the Dharma anew after it has been forgotten and teaches it by setting in motion once again the Wheel of the Dharma. Once that Buddha Dharma has again been forgotten the way is open for a new Buddha to appear and set the Wheel rolling once again. So Kashyapa Buddha was one of the Buddhas of this world prior to Shakyamuni, the Buddha of recent history and the Buddha who set the current Wheel of the Dharma rolling. Unfortunately, even upon meeting a Buddha one can still miss the point, the Buddha's can't do everything for you. So this poor Zen master of a previous age taught that an enlightened man transcends cause and effect and for this was doomed to five hundred rebirths as a fox - and the fox in East Asia is looked upon as a kind of malevolent trickster. So this was not a good thing. He is doomed to continue appearing as a fox until he gets the Dharma right - kind of like Bill Murray having to repeat Groundhog day until he gets it right. Now he hopes to undo the past and wants to get the right answer.
Hyakujo said: `The enlightened man is one with the law of causation.'
Other translations say: "The enlightened man is not blind to the law of causation." which I like better, but this works as well. So the point is there is no one to transcend and nothing to be transcended. The law of causation is what we are for good or ill, and we can either be blind to it and act in ignorance or we can be aware of it and work with the process, with the way things are, with the way we are. A Buddha is an "Awakened One" not one who has transcended to some other realm or reality.
At the words of Hyakujo the old man was enlightened. `I am emancipated,' he said, paying homage with a deep bow. `I am no more a fox, but I have to leave my body in my dwelling place behind this mountain. Please perform my funeral as a monk.' The he disappeared.
The next day Hyakujo gave an order through the chief monk to prepare to attend the funeral of a monk. `No one was sick in the infirmary,' wondered the monks. `What does our teacher mean?'
After dinner Hyakujo led the monks out and around the mountain. In a cave, with his staff he poked out the corpse of an old fox and then performed the ceremony of cremation.
That evening Hyakujo gave a talk to the monks and told this story about the law of causation.
Here is where something funny occured to me. Granted that this is a fantastic story utilizing the Buddhist idea of rebirth as an animal, and the East Asian idea of foxes as magical beings who can take on human form and who like to trick others, it seemed to me that maybe Hyakujo himself made up the whole story to make a point about how enlightened ones relate to causation - by being aware of it instead of denying it. Furthermore, it seemed to me that perhaps he was walking around the mountain and found the dead body of the fox and this inspired him to make up this story and then have the monks bury the poor fox. This would make Hyakujo the tricky one, coming up with a dramatic device to make a point and get a fox buried with full honors. It would also mean that the effect (the dead fox) of the exchange between Hyakujo and the fox was in actuality the cause of the (possibly imagined) exchange between Hyakujo and the fox. I thought of this because I had been reading Dogen's wonderful essay "Uji" or "Being-Time" in which Dogen relates how being is itself the flow of time and vice versa and how past, present, and future are mutually related. This means that in the profound view of cause and effect, effects can be causes and causes can be effects depending on point of view. So one can aspire to a goal (the effect in the future) and that can motivate one to do one's best (the cause in the present) but in a way the future effect has become the cause of the efforts which then become an effect of the imagined goal. And there are many other permutations as well. But again, I have drifted into abstraction with this. Brining it down to earth, it means that a dead animal on the side of road embodies both cause and effect - to the eyes of a clever and discerning person like Hyakujo everything, no matter how humble, can be a teaching and can open up for us the many possibilities of cause and effect.
Obaku, upon hearing this story, asked Hyakujo: `I understand that a
long time ago because a certain person gave a wrong Zen answer he
became a fox for five hundred rebirths. Now if I was to ask: If some
modern master is asked many questions, and he always gives the right
answer, what will become of him?'
I suspect that what Obaku is really getting at is this: "Leave aside the wrong answer, what about when the right answer is just given as a matter of intellectual knowledge, or becomes the cause for pride or complacency, or even arrogance?" Obaku seems to be asking Hyakujo if he really knows the answer in his heart and not just in his mind. Is he giving the right answer with the right attitude? Most importantly, he wants a demonstration in concrete terms. Something that will show how all this talk of cause and effect, and awareness of it, can come to life in that moment.
Hyakujo said: `You come here near me and I will tell you.'
Obaku went near Hyakujo and slapped the teacher's face with this
hand, for he knew this was the answer his teacher intended to give
him.
A slap in the Zen context does not really mean abuse. Just like one would slap a hysterical person to bring them back to clarity and cut through the panic, a slap in Zen is meant to bring a person back to this moment. Obaku had been around long enough to know that this is what Hyakujo intended to do, so he pre-empted him. The student had become the teacher in this instance.
Hyakujo clapped his hands and laughed at the discernment. `I thought
a Persian had a red beard,' he said, `and now I know a Persian who
has a red beard.'
I am not certain, but I think this may be a reference to Bodhidharma, who was said to have had a red-beard. Bodhidharma was not a Persian but a South Indian I believe. Other translations of this story say "foreigner" rather than "Persian." But let's assume Bodhidharma is meant here. If that is the case, what is means is that when Obaku acted as he did, he displayed the very concrete awareness, insight, and ability to act naturally on that enlightened-awareness that Bodhidharma had come to China to teach. From theoretical knowledge based on scholastic study of the sutras, the legend of Bodhidharma has him teaching the Chinese how to bring that knowledge into their actual awareness, their bodily posture, their ability to act concretely in the true spirit of the teachings through the zazen and other methods that he taught. In acting as he did, Hyakujo is saying that Obaku had brought Bodhidharma to life right then and there by living his teachings. And this is how past (Bodhidharma) becomes concretely present (a slap) and actualizes the goal of enlightenment (the future). Cause and effect have become one, because they are no longer a linear chronology of past cause leading to present effect or present cause leading to future effect but cause and effect both present in one action. Slap!
Mumon's comment: `The enlightened man is not subject.' How can this
answer make the monk a fox?
`The enlightened man is at one with the law of causation.' How can
this answer make the fox emancipated?
To understand clearly one has to have just one eye.
The one eye is the eye of concentration and insight, the eye of being fully present in this moment.
Controlled or not controlled?
The same dice shows two faces.
Not controlled or controlled,
Both are a grievous error.
If one has opened that eye then one can see the limitations of these answers. One can see the implied dualism in seperating ourselves from cause and effect or seperating causes and effects. One can see these things for oneself rather than just thinking about them abstractly.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo (the slap in the face of Nichiren Shonin),
Ryuei
Hi everyone,
I just want to direct everyone to this interview of Ruin (below). Ruin was a Philadelphia hard core punk band in the late 80s. At the time all the members were practicing Nichiren Buddhism. The founder, Glenn Wallis, went on to become a teacher of Sanskrit and Indian religion and currently teaches at the University of Georgia and the Won Buddhist Institute in Philadelphia (another group I have connections with through my old friend and teacher Rev. Bokin Kim). Glenn is not just a professor however, he is a true practitioners, artist, thinker, etc... As are all the members of Ruin. These are truly some of the most extraordinary people I have met in my life. Glenn in fact was the one who convinced me to give Nichiren Buddhism a try. And their music and philosophy and sheer authenticity and intensity had a huge impact on me. In fact, I still listen to their music. This interview really brings out well what they were and still are all about. Long live RUIN! Here is the link to the interview:
Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't also provide a link to Glenn's excellent translation and commentary on the Dhammapada:
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi everyone, I just noticed that this is my 100th entry. Yay! Anyway, I think it is only fair to comment on this koan as it really is kind of obscure. My original statements and the koan will remain. These additional reflection or attempts to unpack the koan will be in bold below:
In Zen Buddhist literature there are many references to "board-carriers", those who have a one-sided view. Most often in Zen, this refers to this who have become attached to emptiness. They no longer take cognizance of convention (that is to say of the provisional reality) and have lost the Middle Way that recognizes that not only is form emptiness, but emptiness is also form. It seems to me that many Zen koans (a word that means something like "case-study") are about how the Zen masters helped their disciples realize either emptiness (the no-selfness of people and things) or how to relate concretely and immediately in terms of provisional realities, or how to maintain the Middle Way by not coming down one-sidedly into either the empty or the provisional.
A board-carrier could also be someone who has attached to a particular view, including the view that everyone is wrong. In order to hold that view they would have to make the presumption that they are themselves exempt because they hold the right view that everyone is wrong. Shakyamuni Buddha referred to such people as "eel-wrigglers" who taught that there was nothing to teach but who nevertheless held themselves forth as teachers. I believe that Shariputra and Maudgalyayana's former teacher, Sanjaya, was one of these. In any case, here is the story of one such eel-wriggling or board-carrying person which I have taken from The True Dharma Eye: Zen Master Dogen's Three Hundred Koans (though the case also appears as number 98 in the Blue Cliff Record):
Congyi of Tianping, during his traveling, visited Siming Monastery. He often said, "Don't say that in the present time you can encounter the Buddhadharma. When we look for someone who can, it is impossible to find one."
So even in ancient China there were those who liked to say that the only true thing is that there is no truth. The only correct position is that everyone is wrong. But as with all such relativist positions, the one saying it is either making an exception of him or herself, or doesn't realize that such a position, to be consistent, must invalidate itself. In other words, they are either hypocritically claiming to be the only person who is right in a world full of wrong, or they are sawing off the very limb they are sitting on without realizing it.
One day, Tianping came out of the dharma hall. Abbot Xiyuan Siming called out to him, "Tianping!"
Tianping looked up.
Xiyuan said, "Wrong."
Xiyuan Siming was a wily old Zen Master who decided to have some fun with Tianping and perhaps jostle him awake. This method of calling someone and when they respond to hit them or otherwise upbraid them is one that pops up a lot in Zen stories. It seems to make no sense. It is only common sense to look up when your name is called. In fact, in most cases it would be rude to do otherwise. On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of automatic unthinking response that most of us who sleepwalk through life spend every moment doing. Not even just in social situations either. We constantly are automatically responding to our environment in an unthinking way whenever it "calls out" to us. This is what the Zen Masters are trying to point out. This is why they yell or smack or call out "wrong" (as in this case) to the disciples whenever they just respond like this on automatic. This is a wake up call. In this case, Xiyuan Siming is pointing out to Tianping that despite his views, he is just like everyone else - just doing what comes naturally whether it is beneficial or not.
Tianping took a few steps.
Again Xiyuan said, "Wrong."
So of course, Tianping quite naturally concludes that Xiyuan is just messing with him. And of course he is, for his own good. In any case, the one side of the equation is to respond to form or the provisional truth of things by responding when called. On the one hand, that is correct. On the other hand, it is a one-sided following after form. So Tianping decides to ignore the call, and then he falls into the emptiness side. This can also be correct in the sense of detachment and liberation, but on the other hand it is also wrong. It is one sided clinging to emptiness, a cop-out in this case, and not really an authentic response. Again, he is wrong. The Middle Way has not yet been found, realized, or actualized.
Tianping went close to him. Xiyuan said, "Are these two wrongs my wrongs or your wrongs?"
Tianping said, "My wrongs, Master."
Xiyuan said, "Wrong."
Tianping figures out that he was hooked and allows himself to be reeled in. Xiyuan tests him again with a trick question (that I will admit I am not sure I would have had a "correct" answer to either). Tianping falls into it and shows that he is still fixated on right and wrong. He figures that if he admits to being "wrong" he will then be "right." Wrong again. Tianping is still on the hook. Still hasn't transcended right and wrong. Still hasn't found the Middle Way in the living moment.
Tianping gave up. Xiyuan said, Senior monastic, stay here for a while, and let us examine these wrongs."
Xiyuan offers to let Tianping off the hook. Or, to look at it another way, he offers to join Tianping on the hook so they can both hop off it together. This reminds me of what my sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, says to people who join our temple when he bestows jukai (the Diamond Chalice Precept) and the Omandala to them: "Let us study together."
Tianping walked away. Later he became abbot of Tianping Monastery and said, "A long time ago, when I was traveling, I was blown by karmic winds to Elder Xiyuan's assembly. He pointed out my two wrongs. He asked me to stay over the summer and examine these wrongs. I did not realize them as wrong at that time. But when I headed south, I knew right away why he had said 'Wrong.'" (pp.386-387)
Is Tianping regretting that he did not stay and work himself free? Or is he claiming that he figured it out later, like a person who doesn't get the punchline until the next day? Is he right or wrong about this? How about you?
John Daido Loori added his own commentary and verse to this story, but I think I will just let the story stand as it is for now. But I recommend looking that book up.
This is what I said when I initially posted this story. But now I have bared my own belly to it and thus compounded my error.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei