The Buddha said: "Study and practice it continuously, and you will
become Buddhas. (Chapter 5, p. 114)
Comment: "It" in this brief passage is "the Way of Bodhisattvas"
which is in turn the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren
reiterated this advise in Shoho Jisso Sho when he wrote: "Strive to
carry out the two ways of practice and learning. Without practice
and learning Buddhism will cease to exist. Endeavor yourself and
cause others to practice these two ways of practice and learning,
which stem from faith."
I have noticed that all the authentic forms of Indian spirituality -
not just Buddhism - all propose that one is liberated from suffering
either through insight (a spiritual awakening that transcends
conceptual knowledge) or from grace (either from God in the Vedic
systems or through the adhisthana or saving powers of the Buddha in
some forms of Mahayana Buddhism including T'ien-t'ai and Nichiren
Buddhism). Some systems (and I would count T'ien-t'ai and Nichiren
Buddhism among them) propose a combination or synthesis of awakening
and grace (or "response-power" of the Buddha if one wants to go
strictly by T'ien-t'ai terminlogy). No system of Indian spirituality
that I am aware of ever proposes that we are saved by academic
knowledge or by good works. They all seem to suggest that awakening
and/or grace leads to a liberation or salvation that transends what
can be brought about by concepts or works - and that concepts and
works are in fact part of the system of samsara (lit. wandering on)
that we are trying to escape.
And yet, when it comes down to it - most forms of authentic Indian
spirituality do recognize that study and practice have a very
important place. They either bring us to a point where insight
and/or grace can takeover or they manifest in the world the
transformation brought about by insight and/or grace. Many systems
propose that it does both - prepares the way and manifests the way.
You could put it this way - if enlightenment/liberation is a
fortunate accident, a breaking in of the unconditioned into the
conditionedness of our lives, than study and practice helps us to
become more accident prone, and later helps us to help others
stumble into enlightenment/liberation.
It seems to me though, personally, that those who dispense with
study and practice because they are so sure of themselves or because
they presume upon "faith" who are the most safeguarded against any
accidental breaking in of the unconditioned. Conversely, those who
rely merely upon conceptual knowledge and/or good works are merely
affirming selfhood and not opening themselves up to the faith that
takes one beyond self.
The Lotus Sutra and Nichiren both seem to be affirming a study and
practice that leads to deeper faith and then manifests a deepening
faith - and it is this which indispensably allows for a real
breaking-through.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
So last night I was listening to a local rabidly left wing talk show host on the radio, and he was telling the story of how Sarah Palin several years ago when she was a mayor tried to fire a librarian because she wouldn't ban books. He then read off a list of the books that would have been banned - and it included everything from Huckleberry Finn to the Harry Potter series, and so on. The host, at least, had the integrity to read an email critique he immediately received that the list he read had never been presented by Sarah Palin but was simply a list of all the books that had ever been banned or put on lists for banning in the United States. So that left me wondering - what's the deal? I think we all know that Sarah Palin is a right-wingnut Christian - but would she really try to ban the Harry Potter books if she had the power to do so.
I found the following article which reveals that there never was a list - but I still find it disturbing, maybe you will too, or maybe not. Anyway, here is the link:
Apparently there are also some fun clips of Sarah Palin addressing some other right wingnut Christians in Alaska just a few months ago on youtube. I can't go over to youtube now, but I am sure all you have to do is plug her name in.
Now, some of what I heard was just leftwing slander and obvious spin. But there was enough there for me to find troubling.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Mark Rogow recently responded to a question from Charles about the differences between Kempon Hokke and Nichiren Shu. I would like to respond to this here:
Mark:
One difference is the weight placed on the first half and latter half of the Lotus Sutra and especially the significance of the One Chapter and Two Halves and the Daimoku. The Nichiren Shu, in general, places almost equal emphasis on the first half of the Lotus Sutra (ichi-ha)with the latter half. The Kempon Hokke deemphasizes even the Honmon teachings with respect to the "One Chapter and Two Halves" and demphasize even the One Chapter and Two Halves in respect to the Daimoku, the principle faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra (shoretsu). This is Nichiren's perspective. Nichikan of the Nichiren Shoshu, on the other hand, advocated extreme shoretsu with the smashing of the Hoben-pon, by the Juryo-hon, and the smashing of the Juryo-hon with the Daimoku.
Since we adopt Nichiren's perspective we are the true harmony school.
Let me give you an example. We have a scale that accomodates different weights and we wish to correctly balance the scale. On the right side of the scale we place the Daimoku which is a one kilogram brass weight. On the left side of the scale we place the One Chapter and Two Halves, a 0.5 kg brass weight. We add the rest of the Honmon teachings, a weight of 0.25 kg, the Hoben-pon, a weight of 0.15 kg and the rest of the Shakumon teachings, a 0.1kg brass weight. Thus we have balanced the Buddhism of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin. The Nichiren Shu also places on one side, a one kilogram Daimoku brass weight but they attempt to balance the scale by placing on the other side, a 0.4kg weight of the One Chapter and Two Halves, a 0.3kg weight of the Honmon, a 0.25kg weight of the Hoben-pon, and a 0.25kg weight of the remaining Shakumon teachings.
Ryuei:
This is something for academics at Rissho University to hash out. Maybe it is true that in the past Nichiren Shu balanced things out as Mark suggests. In fact, I know that there are Nichiren Shu ministers who probably do have this view as they put equal emphasis on chanting the sutra as they do on chanting the Odaimoku, and spend as much or more time teaching from the perspective of the Shakumon as the Honmon, or the One Chapter and Two Halves as on the efficacy of the Odaimoku itself. Certainly I could be accused of coming across that way at times. And I certainly cop to putting a lot of emphasis on basic Buddhism as taught in the Pali Canon - and in fact one prominent Japanese Nichiren Shu minister (in Japan) told me that I don't spend enough time on the Pali Canon. LOL.
Anyway, that's not the whole story though. There are plenty of Nichiren Shu ministers (probably many of them are from those Kempon Hokke lineages that are now part of Nichiren Shu) who do take the view that Mark attributes to Kempon Hokke. And what Mark says is correct - that is the perspective Nichiren takes in the gosho. It is very clear: the Odaimoku is the seed for the Buddhism of sowing, the One Chapter and Two Halves are the expression of the ultimate teaching for the time of harvest, which in turn trumps the 8 chapters, which in turn trumps the Honmon as a whole, which in turn trumps the Shakumon, which in turn trumps all the other sutras. At the same time, Nichiren cautioned against throwing any of it away as advocated by extreme shoretsu.
Now I actually don't have a problem with this. And if anyone really paid close attention to my views and how I teach and present Buddhism (offline too) they would see that I have never put other practices on par with Odaimoku, not even the chanting of the Lotus Sutra. They would also notice that I do believe the Single-Moment of Faith and Rejoicing which is the Odaimoku illuminates the One Chapter and Two Halves which in turn illuminates the 8 chapters which in turn illuminates the Honmon which in turn illuminates the Shakumon, which in turn illuminates all the sutras. In other words the final word is Odaimoku and what it expresses and so on down the line. The sutras needs to be interpreted in light of the Shakumon which needs to be interpreted in light of the Honmon and so on. This is my actual view and has been since the late 90's when I put both feet into Nichiren Shu.
Mark:
Another difference is the divergence of our respective views of and feelings for Nichiren. The Nichiren Shu pays lip service to Nichiren as Jogyo Bosatsu while we believe that he is our eternal leader and Sensei in the Latter Day. They treat him as merely a great Bodhisattva, delight in revealing his human frailties, and maintain that he holds no special position in the Buddhist pantheon, likening him to Tientai and Dengyo. This might be their rational for overiding Nichiren's teachings by those of Udana Nichiki's. We on the other hand, assert that, even if Nichiju (the founder of Kempon Hokke)were to conflict with Nichiren, even in the slightest, he should be rejected. We believe that Nichiren, as the Supreme Votary of the Lotus Sutra and the only one who has bodily read the entire Lotus Sutra, can never be overuled in his commentary on the Lotus Sutra and the times in which we live.
Ryuei:
There may be some validity to this. For my part I am fine with this. I don't think Nichiren is infallible. I don't think the historical Buddha was infallible. I don't think the historical Jesus was infallible. I think the papacy is not only not infallible but totally corrupt. I could go on. I also don't think Nichiki Udana was infallible for that matter. One thing I like about Nichiren Shu is that it does regard Nichiren Shonin (or even Daishonin - we use that title also) very highly but we don't make him out to be equal to the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha or some kind of infallible mouthpiece of truth. He was a man of his times, with all the limitations and frailty and fallibility that implies.
However, I would not say we say he is merely equivalent to T'ien-t'ai or Dengyo. That is not the position of Nichiren Shu. From the point of view of our teachings - T'ien-t'ai and Dengyo were appearances of and did the work of provisional bodhisattvas and they were key people in the external transmission of the Dharma. Nichiren, however, is the appearance of the leader of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth who were given the mission to spread the Odaimoku in the Latter Age by the Eternal Buddha in chapter 21 and therefore he embodies the inner transmission of the Dharma. Nichiren Shu does uphold what Nichiren writes in the gosho - that this inner transmission supercedes the former external transmission of the T'ien-t'ai school, and is the work of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth.
When I read the gosho I see Nichiren writing about himself and by extension all his followers in three perspectives. From one perspective he writes of himself as an ordinary person of the Latter Day at the stage of hearing the Dharma for the first time. On a deeper level he writes of himself and his followers who chant Namu Myoho Renge Kyo as those who are doing the work of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth and who therefore must be those Bodhisattvas. On the deepest level, our true nature is that we are truly buddhas. All three of these perspectives can be found in Shoho Jisso Sho, and the deepest perspective can even be found in Kanjin Honzon Sho where Nichiren says that for those who have faith in the Lotus Sutra the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha is our flesh, blood, bones and marrow.
This means, btw, that Nichiki Udana was an ordinary person, a Bodhisattva of the Earth, and truly a Buddha.
Mark:
Therefore, shakabuku and the four dictums are our bone and marrow.
Ryuei:
If one reads the Kaimoku Sho, one will see that Nichiren cites Mio-lo and T'ien-t'ai to the effect that when it comes to shakubuku and shoju one should not cling to only one or the other but apply them appropriately. Certainly there are other gosho (I think Kembutsu Mirai Ki and Nyosetsu Shugyo Sho) where Nichiren emphasizes only shakubuku for his day and age. But he does not elevate shakubuku or the four dictums to eternal principles or put them on a par with our true nature. Shakubuku is a teaching method, a mode of practice and propagation - and not always appropriate. I would in fact say that the times and conditions we are facing are now indeed very different from medieval Japan. Certainly you and others (in Kempon Hokke or even within Nichiren Shu) can disagree. But here I agree (but really only in part) with Nichiki Udana. I do, for the record, suspect that Nichiki Udana may have gone too far in being accomodating - but I need to see translations of what he actually wrote.
In addition, if anyone really pays attention to what I write (online and in my other writings) and say offline, it will become clear that I don't hesitate to criticize and rebuke. I'm just not stuck in that mode and most of the time I try to be tactful and respectful about it (as Nichiren himself advised to his disciples in the gosho).
Mark:
We do not allow for the seperate enshrinement of Bodhisattvas or deities, unlike the Nichiren Shu.
Ryuei:
We do indeed allow for this in Nichiren Shu. As for Kempon Hokke, I guess I'll just have to take Mark's word for it that they don't. I wonder if the Kempon Hokke lineage temples that are now within Nichiren Shu allow for seperate enshrinment. It may be that they do not. No one in Nichiren Shu is required to enshrine anything but the Gohonzon.
Mark
We believe in the absolute equality of priests and laity, allowing for the ordination of lay priests not unlike Toki Jonin who was perfectly endowed with all the abilities of his fully ordained counterparts . We may look up to a priest as a nominal Sensei but only as a representative of the Original Buddha Shakyamuni and Nichiren Daishonin, our true and actual Senseis.
Ryuei:
It is true that we do not have an ordination program for lay-priests that I am aware of. However, we are working on having a lay-leader program that will probably be equivalent. As for priests and laity being equal - John Petry the lay president of NONA has addressed that on the Nichiren Shu yahoo group. There certainly is equality in Nichiren Shu, and in fact I think that at least some temples the boards of directors probably have more power than any of the ministers. Anyone who think Nichiren Shu priests lord it over the laity betray their ignorance of and lack of experience with Nichiren Shu.
Mark:
We adopt the practice of neither giving nor receiving from slanderers such as SGI, NST, HBS, Zen, Nembutsu, Ritsu, Shingon, Taoists, Hindus, Christians, and Muslims.
Ryuei:
Well considering that I give talks at Zen centers and accept their honorariums I guess that means I accept donations from slanderers. In fact, I hold my weekly Sunday services at a Zendo offered to me for my use by a community center founded by Christians and have even advocated people sending them donations to support their work (the Faithful Fools that is). So guilty as charged. I don't follow fuju fuse and neither does Nichiren Shu as a whole, though certain ministers might.
I do agree that we should not allow ourselves to be co-opted or compromised because we have become beholden to those who don't respect our teachings and practice. But I do not believe that has ever been the case in my dealings. When I give talks at other Buddhist centers and when I run my services at Faithful Fools I have always been free to teach Nichiren Shu teaching and practice without compromise.
Mark:
These are just some of the differences and I am sure they will be disputed by the Nichiren Shu but careful reading of their official positions and the teachings of their priests, such as Ryuei, will reveal the merit of my assertions.
Ryuei:
Well perhaps contrary to your expectations I have not disputed much of what you said. Nichiren Shu is a big tent - and there are probably Nichiren Shu ministers who are every bit as strict and hardline as you, and there are others who are more liberal than me. I frankly see myself as a moderate and not a liberal - but others interpretations and impressions may differ.
You may, of course, respond on your own blog.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
On Sunday I attended a lecture at the Won Buddhist Temple in San Francisco, as the lecture was being given by Rev. Cho Tae Won (sp?) the older sister of my friend Rev. Bokin Kim who was my teacher back in the late 80's when I was a member of the Won Buddhist Temple of Philadelphia. Rev. Cho Tae Won is also the daughter of the third Prime Master of Won Buddhism (it was founded in 1916).
I also want to mention - I am impressed that Won Buddhism has 30 (or was it 31) thriving temples in the US. Granted, almost all the members are Korean immigrants - but I sense a real dedication to Buddhism itself at the temples. They aren't just community centers. Many of these members drive hours to attend temple services and activities. And this Dharma talk they came for was an hour and a half long without a break! And these were lay people coming to attend such a lecture on the Dharma. The woman who translated the talk into English on Sunday had driven 4 hours from Reno to be there. I have to say that unless we start to see that kind of dedication among Nichiren Buddhists there will be no real future for Nichiren Buddhism in the US. But if there were that kind of dedicaton - Wow!
Anyway, all this had me thinking about Won Buddhism and their founder the Great Master Sot'aesan again. Sot'aesan had an awakening experience in 1916 after years of trying to resolve what we would basically call a severe and even crippling case of existential angst (Korean Buddhist style that is). He then read all the world scriptures he could get his hands on and upon reading the Diamond Sutra he believed that his experience was similar to the Buddha's awakening. He thereupon decided to found what he initially called the Buddha Dharma Research Society. He gathered some followers and began teaching and directing them to do public works projects in his local area. Some time after that Sot'aesan went to a Buddhist monastery (the Bongnae Cloiser if I remember right) and began reading the sutras and consulting with the Korean Buddhist monks. In the end he set forth his own pragmatic and streamlined form of teaching that came to be called Won Buddhism or Buddhism of the Circle (the Circle being the image he used to indicate perfection, completeness, all-sidedenss, and the Dharmakaya or Essence-Body of the Buddha).
Some people here have the misimpression that I believe only fully ordained Buddhist ministers are qualified to start a school or tradition of Buddhism, or even a Sangha. And certainly I can see where what I have written would give that impression. But it is not really what I am driving at. Some people also believe I am targeting them for starting their own traditions - but what I am doing is trying to set out a pair of shoes - and if someone feels they fit those shoes and that my critique is valid then they should reflect on what they are doing and/or getting involved with. But if they don't think the shoes I describe fit them or if they think they do but that my critiques aren't valid - then please just write it off as my own opinion and subjective experience. But what are the shoes I am setting forth? I have to ask myself this, because I have a great deal of respect for Sot'aesan and what he did - and he basically founded his own school of Buddhism without being fully ordained. So why do I think it was ok in his case and not in the case of some others? I could say the same thing about the late Nikkyo Niwano, the founder of Rissho Kosei Kai - I also respect him and he also founded his own group without being an ordained minister of any traditional school. But let me stick to Sot'aesan for now.
The thing about Sot'aesan is that he had a deep breakthrough/insight experience at a relatively young age (I think he was in his early or mid-30s) and this was after trying for years to find a good teacher and being unable to find anyone who could help him resolve his doubts and questions. He also practiced various forms of prayer and asceticism (much like the Buddha) but these didn't help either. So here is someone who really gave it his all and nothing available to him panned out. I should mention that Buddhism at that time in Korea had become hopelessly out of touch and moribund due to centuries of neglect and outright repression by the Neo-Confucian Choson (sp?) Dynasty, and by the early 20th century the Buddhist Sangha in Korea was compromised in various ways by the Japanese occupation's control of religion at that time. So Sot'aesan had an awakening that seemed to him unique and he did it without any teachers. Most other people would there and then begin proclaiming their enlightenment. But Sot'aesan took the intriguing step of reading all the worlds scriptures so he could find out what past sages had to say so he could put his insight into a larger perspective. How many people would do that? How many Buddhists who have some great insight would then take the trouble of reading the sutras to try to see if their experience is accounted for and in what context and perspective? How many people would bother to try to get any kind of reality check or verification for their spiritual experiences or insights. In the end, Sot'aesan, as I mentioned, read the Diamond Sutra and came to believe that what that sutra described was what he awakened to.
Sot'aesan then began to teach and organize a very practical project of reclaiming some barren areas of land for rice cultivation to help the people of his area. He gathered together people to more deeply study and put into practice the Buddha Dharma - something that the traditional monks had become incapable of doing. I think Sot'aesan realized that the work he wanted to accomplish did not require taking on a monastic vocation and that in any case he might be compromised by joining the traditional Buddhist Sangha in Korea at that time. And yet - he still went to the monasterys and the monks for further research and guidance - drawing upon their experience and making sure that he had a wider and deeper understanding of Buddhism from traditional sources. Consequently he remained on very good terms with the Buddhist clergy his whole life - and was greatly respected by them (or at least many of them) as well.
I personally have no idea how widely read Sot'aesan was in the Buddhist canon. I suspect the answers are available to researchers in Korea. The teachings translated into English show him as very knowledeable. They show an awareness and understanding of basic Buddhism, and basic Mahayana doctrine, and the Prajnaparamita to an extent. It even has the flavor of the universality of Buddhahood of the Lotus Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra. But because he is mainly teaching rural Koreans in the early half of the 20th century who did not have any deep knowledge of Buddhism he always keeps things simple and practical. And in fact he does recommend some sutras and Zen writings for people to study in addition to his own discourses - but they are all fairly simple and accessible. So Sot'aesan didn't try to bypass Buddhism itself but was constantly grounding his teachings in the sutras and those commentaries that he felt expressed the essential meaning and gave practical guidance. In othe words, he didn't make it all about himself.
Now as a Nichiren Buddhist could I critique Sot'aesan for using provisional teachings and practices and for not directly using or crediting or directing people to the Lotus Sutra? Certainly I could, but for the moment I have to say that I respect several things about Sot'aesan because he does what too many other people, in my view, do not do:
1. He spent years trying to find good teachers and did not put up with fakes who didn't know what they were talking about. He showed a great discernment.
2. He spent years doing very strenuous practices - basically giving it his all - to resolve his existential doubts. In this he showed great sincerity and dedication.
3. When he did have a breakthrough/insight he checked it against the scriptures of the world religions and the Buddha Dharma found in the sutras. In this he showed a sense of humility and perspective.
4. Even after starting his own group to teach and practice Buddha Dharma he went to the traditional teachers of Buddhism to get their views and he continued to read the Buddhist canon. Again, this shows a willingness to continue learning, reflecting, and refining. He didn't presume to have all the answers.
5. Even after setting forth his own synthesis of teaching and practice that he believed would be a practical and essentialized way of attaining the awakening he had realized he still recommended that people have recourse to the Buddha Dharma in the sutras, and never (in my understanding of him) tried to put himself between the people and the Buddha Dharma taught in the sutras. To this day, the Won Buddhist ministers I have known never presume to contradict, bypass, or ignore the sutras - in fact they have been a great help to me in my own study of the Mahayana canon. This shows a genuine reverence for the Buddha Dharma on its own terms.
In short - Sot'aesan was not a monk or minister, and I don't think he needed to be. And though I could, as a Nichiren Buddhist, find fault with his teachings, I respect his teachings and him because they are very insightful and practical. But beyond that, Sot'aesan made efforts that few people would make, he had a genuine insight, he checked that insight, and he continually referred to the sutras and consulted with the monastic Sangha in Korea who upheld the lineage of teachers going back to Shakyamuni Buddha. Sot'aesan had great confidence in himself and his ability to teach the Dharma in a way that would be responsive to current circumstances in Korea and the world, and he could be critical of the monastic Sangha of his day. But there was also a humility, a willingness to learn and refine his view through genuine interaction with the Buddha Dharma. He really took refuge in Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha in my view.
So in thinking out loud here - I guess I would acknowledge someone as qualified to found a Buddhist school and/or hold themselves out to be a teacher provided that:
1. They had made efforts to really practice and to find good teachers - even if in the end they were not able to find a good mentor (this was the case with Nichiren himself afterall - his own mentor was deluded in his view). This shows sincerity. In my own case, I have an official sensei who is of course my mentor in Buddhism, and I still seek out people who have something to teach me or qualities that I wish to emulate - and these people are not all ministers or clergy.
2. They really had either a genuine insight or awakening or (and I believe this amounts to the same thing or perhaps is even more essential) have developed and matured in their practice and as human beings and so are able to guide those not quite so far along. In my case, I know I have a ways to go and my awakening moments have been rather shallow (or at least I think so) but at the same time I am greatly confident that I have seen through many pitfalls and delusions and I have a discernment and awareness that has at least kept me from appearing on COPS or the Jerry Springer show - so there are at least some people I can perhaps be a good guide for).
3. If they are setting themselves out to be teachers of Buddhism, I would acknowledge those who really do know the Buddha Dharma. They don't have to know the Abhidharma backwards and forwards or have the Flower Garland Sutra memorized - but they should at least be familiar with basic Buddhist teachings and have an appreciation and respect for the subtleties of Mahayana and most importantly not make up stuff or fill in gaps in their knowledge of teachings or Buddhist practices with outside materials when there are more compatible and integral teachings and methods within Buddha Dharma itself.
I am satisfied that people like Sot'aesan and Nikkyo Niwano, even though they weren't ministers or monks, were the kind of people I describe above. On the other hand there are some who are ministers or monks (or nuns) who do not meet my criteria above. Brad Warner, as a for instance, is a fully and officially ordained Zen Master. In many respects I like his way of presenting the Dharma (albeit from a Soto Zen point of view) and his in your face straight talking attitude. I like that. I think his books and blog entries have some great stuff. However, he also makes some mistakes when he teaches Buddhism - and he doesn't seem to think it matters that much that he makes mistakes about Buddhist history, doctrine, and even what the sutras say (for instance he completely missed the point of the parable of the burning house in his last book "Sit Down and Shut Up"). So in this respect, Brad, despite being fully ordained and despite being a brilliant and insightful and entertaining writer (in my opinion) does not match my criteria of a good Buddhist teacher that I would want to learn from or emulate.
So it is not just about being a priest. It is about what qualities or qualifications I personally look for in someone presenting themselves as a Buddhist teacher - and being ordained is really only incidental.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei