Anyway, below I provide the URLs to the original articles at the Nichiren Coffee House (I let Ryuei.net lapse because I am cheap and lazy). The excerpts deal with the conversation between the guest (who represents the leader of the Shogunate) and the host (Nichiren) as to whether the Dharma should serve the interests of the State (the guest's view) or the other way around (the host's view) and what we should make of this in our current situation where Church and State are separated (as they were most definitely NOT in medieval Japan or Europe). Anyway, I hope the following will provoke some thought - esp. since the Theocons in our own country are still out there hiding behind the Tea Party folks (who if they really had political testis would just admit that they are Libertarians or even Anarchists).
Question of Nationalism Part 1
This may seem like a very strange assumption to those of us who grew up with the very different assumptions that church and state are constitutionally separate and furthermore that religion is something that is the business of the private life of the individual and should not be a community affair outside whatever place of worship or religious community one belongs to. On the other hand, these assumptions are not even shared by everyone even in the 21st century, even in the United States of America. All over the world there are countries with a state sponsored religion, such as the Church of England, or with a religiously based constitution and system of law such as in the theocracy of Iran. Even in the USA, there are those who believe that while no denomination should be favored, Christianity should nevertheless be the ideological basis of our society. The concept of the separation of church and state is in fact a very new idea, begun by the predominantly Deist founding fathers of the United States who wanted the United States of America to be free of the tyrannical power of the clergy, the inquisitions, and the holy wars of Europe. They wished to create a state founded upon the democratic, secular, and rational values of the European Enlightenment as opposed to authoritarian claims based on divine revelation. Again, to this day, even in the USA, there are those who believe that it is presumptuous to subordinate the “divinely revealed” doctrines and morals of their sacred scripture to secular values and an empirically grounded rationalism. The separation of church and state, therefore, is not something that can be taken for granted, even at the beginning of the 21st century, even in the USA.
In a society where the separation of church and state is valued, no religion is or can be supported by the state. While prayers for the nation may be offered by individual denominations or congregations this is not assumed to be their primary duty. In fact, it is assumed that the purpose of religion is to address the spiritual needs of the individual, and spiritual or religious beliefs and practices are largely, though not entirely, compartmentalized from one’s public life. For instance, religious beliefs are a topic felt to be best avoided at work or in most other public gatherings in order to avoid contentious and rancorous debates. In a public school environment the introduction of prayer or religious values or worldviews is something that quickly leads to litigation, as people do not want their children to be indoctrinated by particular religious beliefs that may conflict with their own beliefs or lack thereof. When religions do seek to address the society at large or to share their beliefs and win new converts, it is understood that they cannot appeal to the coercive power of the state but must win people over by the merits of their arguments and/or personal example. In cases involving the repeal, amending, or enactment of laws touching on moral issues like the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, reproductive rights, the rights or lack thereof of the unborn, the definition of marriage, or civil rights where the values of those holding particular religious commitments are at stake, the religiously motivated understand that their opinions will be weighed on their own merits and that they must follow the same democratic processes as everyone else. They cannot appeal to religious authorities to enact their wishes, but must make arguments appealing to values that they hope are held by those of other religions and those with no religious commitments. Sometimes the universality of certain values must themselves be argued.
Question of Nationalism Part 2
The guest’s assertion that, “Therefore, we should first pray for the peace and tranquility of the nation before trying to establish the Buddha Dharma,” has been falsely attributed to Nichiren as his own personal view. But, as is apparent, this was the view that Nichiren put in the mouth of the guest, the representative of the Kamakuran shogunate, whose views Nichiren was trying to change. To cite this statement as a way of showing that Nichiren was a “nationalist” is a gross distortion of Nichiren’s actual views and is a complete misreading of the Rissho Ankoku Ron. Far from being a nationalist, Nichiren subordinates the state to the service of Truth, in this case the True Dharma of the Lotus Sutra and warns that disaster will be the result of any other course. Nichiren states, “However, as I have often contemplated the matter in view of Buddhism, I have come to the conclusion that putting a ban on the slanderers of the True Dharma, and highly esteeming the upholders of the True Dharma will lead to the tranquility of the nation and world peace.” Nichiren did not advocate an unquestioning support for the status quo or an uncritical backing of national interests. His conviction was that true security and wellbeing depends upon the effort to discern and support the True Dharma for the sake of world peace.
In a situation where there is a separation of church and state, a situation that cannot be taken for granted, the government has no right to pick favorites or to suppress religions they don’t like. However, the secular authorities and lawful peace keepers do have the right, and even the duty, to protect innocent lives and to punish those who use dishonest or violent means to gain money and influence or who attempt to use such means to persecute those who don’t follow their beliefs or belong to their particular group. In that sense, Nichiren’s point is still relevant. To restate this point in a form compatible with the principles of the separation of church and state in a free democratic society: secular authorities should not lend their support to corrupt religious leaders or groups, but should ensure that everyone’s right to pursue or teach their religious convictions in a peaceful and law-abiding manner is equally protected.
]]>Should One Refrain from Arguing Over the Dharma?
In the chapter of the commentary I discuss three parables that are fairly well-known in Buddhist circles (and the first one is thought of as a Sufi story but it originates in the Pali Canon). The three are the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant wherein several blind men argue over their limited perspective of a snake is; the Parable of the Snake Handler wherein those who know how to utilize the Dharma are like a skillful snake-handler but those who only use it to argue are like an unskillful person who gets bitten when he tries to pick up a snake; and the Parable of the Raft wherein the unskillful person clings to the teachings like a person who carries a raft around after crossing a river. The full parables and their explanations are in the chapter linked above. Here is an exerpt of my comments:
These three parables of the Buddha show that the Buddha did not want people to cling to or argue about one-sided, partial, or biased views. He did not want people to learn the Dharma is a shallow or self-serving way. Nor did he want people to argue about the Dharma instead of putting it into practice. Nor did he want people to turn the Dharma into a set of dogmas to cling to, defend, and fight over. But this does not mean that he did not want people to refrain from correcting false views or correcting those who held even right views wrongly. In an earlier part of this commentary we cited the Buddha’s statements in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta to Mara that he will not pass away until he knows that he has instructed his lay and monastic disciples to competently teach the Dharma so that they “shall be able by means of the Dharma to refute false teachings that have arisen, and teach the Dharma of wondrous effect.” In that spirit, the Buddha taught the parables of the snake and the raft in the context of correcting a monk who held wrong views and was stubbornly misrepresenting the Dharma. In other words, the Buddha was purposely refuting a slanderous view and at the same time teaching the Sangha about the right and wrong way to learn and handle the Dharma. In the parable of the blind men and the elephant he was making the point that Buddhists should not be satisfied with the partial, one-sided, or biased views put forth by those without a clear and direct knowledge of what they are arguing about, but rather should seek out the correct and complete view of the Dharma that the Buddha claimed was a product of direct knowledge and insight.
Nichiren Buddhism, therefore, does agree that one should not cling to partial, one-sided, or biased views, that one should not learn the Dharma in a shallow or self-serving way, and that one should not cling to the teachings dogmatically. At the same time, Nichiren Buddhists do believe that one should take up the True Dharma taught by the Buddha, carefully examine its meaning, and put it into practice in the correct way so as to come to same awakening as the Buddha himself. In this way, false views can be relinquished and right view can prevail and accomplish its purpose.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
If anyone reading this is in the Bay Area, I would like to invite you to attend the Bodhi Day celebration this Sunday December 6th at the San Jose Temple at 10 am. Bodhi Day is the celebration of the Buddha's enlightenment day. Actually it is reckoned in Japan as December 8th, but we will be doing it this Sunday.
If you are not anywhere near a temple and therefore cannot experience a temple service with shomyo (liturgical hymns) and candlelight and other such things, then for you I'd like to share a version of the Buddha's Enlightenment Day (December 8th in the Japanese reckoning) ceremony that you can use at home.
The following refers to the pages of the Dharma book put out by the NBIC. The special Invocation and Final Prayer are taken from a rough translation of the ones that are basic in Nichiren Shu. Now this is not the complete ceremony. The complete ceremony incorporates a lot of Shomyo (special East Asian liturgical hymns), and in a temple (like at San Jose) we will incorporate things like the lighting of candles and such). But again this is only for if you are not near a temple:
Bodhi Day Service
Bowing to the Three Treasures p. 2
Three Treasures p. 3
Invocation p. 5 and/or the following:
Special Praise
We most humbly consider Siddhartha, the Prince of King Shuddhodana of Kapilavastu in Central India, who observed aging, sickness, death, and that all conditioned things are impermanent, and then sought for the wondrous goal of emancipation. At the age of 29 he left his home. From that time on he made great efforts in seeking the Way by visiting spiritual sages and taking up ascetic practices for six years. However, these could not resolve the problem of impermanence and suffering. Turning from them, he sat on the Vajra Dharma Throne under the Bodhi Tree at Uruvela near Bodhgaya by the bank of the Nairanjana River to meditate and enter samadhi. This happened when he was 35. Although the Devil King Mara used various forms of temptation and intimidation he was able to overcome them all. He considered the four noble truths, the eightfold path, and dependent origination both backwards and forwards. On the dawn of December 8th at the first light of the morning star he attained complete perfect awakening. How can we praise him enough? How can we praise him enough? Hail to Eternally Awakened Original Teacher Shakyamuni Buddha.
Verses for Opening the Sutra p. 9
Chapter 2 p. 15 (or 11)
Chapter 16 p. 40 (or 35)
Recitation of Odaimoku
Difficulty of Retaining the Sutra p. 66
Special Prayer:
Today we celebrate the attainment of awakening by Shakyamuni Buddha, our most venerable teacher, by respectfully decorating the altar, offering incense, flowers, candle light, tea, sweets, and food. In the right way we show our deep respect. We respectfully follow this wonderful practice. In all these ways we do all we can to celebrate this momentous occasion in the life of the Buddha.
We most humbly consider the accumulation of the merit of the true practice of the Bodhisattva that fills the Dharma realms of the ten directions. The accumulated virtue of the Buddha stage’s fruition of awakening spreads over all like the heaven of the highest truth. The compassionate vow of “I am always thinking” never stops. The loving thought of “How shall I cause all living beings” is without bias. Observing the time and discerning the capacity, his transformations are limitless. Stored within him is the secret doctrine of the revelation of the origin in the Life Span [chapter]. Covering up his light and hiding his virtue in order to care for the capacity of sentient beings he sat upright for six years. He showed the principle of returning the favor of a holy monk to ordinary monks. He considered the five periods and eight teachings that would lead people to maturity and the harvest buddhahood. In addition to that, he laid the foundation for the sowing of the seed of buddhahood in the Latter Age. We cannot imagine the greatness of his favor and the enormity of his virtue. We have determined to protect and uphold the True Dharma without sparing our lives. We offer that determination as a millionth of our repayment of that favor. May we encounter the sacred phrase, “That old vow of mind has now been fulfilled” and receive the wondrous benefit of “I once vowed that I would cause all living beings to become exactly as I am.” (p. 37 of the Lotus Sutra) “Your face is most wonderful. Your light illumined the worlds of the ten quarters. I once made offerings to you. Now I have come to see you again.” (p. 302) We appreciate your great compassion and great loving-kindness.
[Other prayers here]
May the merits we have accumulated by this offering be distributed among all living beings, and may we and all other living beings attain the enlightenment of the Buddha.
May all the Dharma-realms equally benefit.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo
Four Great Vows p. 78
If you don't have the Dharma book but instead have the Sacred Services of Nichiren Shu then just use the equivalents of the things above. Basically just do what you usually do for a service but use the Special Praise and the Special Prayer above.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Empowerment and Responsibility of the Buddha's Disciple
Here is the key portion of that dialogue that I'd like to share in this blog:
The host tells his guest that like a blue fly riding on the tail of a thoroughbred horse, or a vine clinging to a tall pine tree, he is a born disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha and a servant of the king of sutras, the Lotus Sutra. This means that even though he is a lowly monk with, as he says, “little ability” he is nevertheless a child of the Buddha who cannot help but he troubled by the decline of the Buddha Dharma. In the expanded Rissho Ankoku Ron Nichiren follows this with several citations from chapters 10, 14, and 23 of the Lotus Sutra wherein the sutra asserts that it supreme among all sutras. This means that by association those who uphold it are to be valued and respected just as much as the sutra they serve. This is a bold argument to make before the military rulers.
The argument is interesting in that it simultaneously presents the votary of the Lotus Sutra as humble but also as having an unparalleled dignity. The votary should be humble because they may have nothing of their own to be particularly proud of. The votary may be poor, ugly, uneducated, homeless, lacking in status, perhaps even simple-minded and unable to grasp the subtle teachings of Buddhism. However, through faith in the Lotus Sutra, they attain a dignity that sets them above those who do not have faith in what the sutra teaches. They have nothing of their own but gain everything from the Lotus Sutra. But what do they gain from the Lotus Sutra? Why should worshipping a particular scripture set someone seen as worthless by the world above all others, even shoguns and emperors, five star generals and presidents?
The answer is that upholding the Lotus Sutra is not about worshipping a text; it is about upholding the Wonderful Dharma that teaches the supreme dignity of all people. The supreme teaching of the Lotus Sutra is that all beings will attain buddhahood. Rich or poor, famous, infamous, or unknown, Olympic athletes, the mentally or physically handicapped, young or old, educated or uneducated, smart or dull, all races, classes, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and even creeds are all destined for buddhahood according to the Lotus Sutra. Even those who would be considered incorrigible evildoers like Devadatta or Judas Iscariot (the Christian equivalent of Devadatta) are extended the promise of eventual buddhahood in the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra is the great equalizer that reveals the hidden depths of unconditioned purity, bliss, and eternity that is the true selfless self of all beings. By upholding the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Sutra the most humble person can realize the infinite dignity of all life, and those of great worldly wealth, power, and status can realize their essential equality with all beings. This is the humbling empowerment of the Lotus Sutra.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
In those chapters I review the Confucianist values and assumptions regarding the way in which the virtue (or lack of virtue) on the part of the ruler has an impact on world around them - both socially and ecologically. I also review how these assumptions then carried over into the assumption that the ruler must uphold the True Dharma in order to guarantee peace and security within their countries.
Now here are the passages from those chapters wherein I share my own reflections on what this could possibly mean for global citizens in the 21st century:
As has been seen previously in the Rissho Ankoku Ron, Nichiren and the Buddhist sutras shared this view, common among agrarian people all over the world. Here we see the Confucian version of it. While we no longer share this mythic view of natural events, it is still true that human greed, anger, and ignorance can bring about civil strife, warfare, poverty, famine, and can even bring about or exacerbate natural disasters through ecological damage, or the refusal to adequately plan and prepare for natural events like earthquakes, drought, forest fires, flooding, or hurricanes.
We may not subscribe to the idea that a divinely appointed emperor is needed to maintain law and order and act as an intermediary with God or Heaven, but these ideas are not totally alien either. Confucianism is basically about family values. Ideally within a family there are clearly delineated relationships and responsibilities and an underlying spirit of love and affection. If the family is the basic building block of society, then the same values that hold a family together in love and harmony should also be the values that hold the country itself together. The country, then, becomes an extension of the family. Even today, there are those who argue that family values are needed if our society is to hold together and receive God’s blessing. Some believe that one of the greatest threats to these values is when public figures like politicians, actors, singers, or sports stars act contrary to these values or endorse ideas or ways of life that could possibly lead to or encourage the breakdown of the family. Usually it is religious conservatives who hold such views. Often these are the very same people who believe in the literal unfolding of scriptural prophecy and the intervention of an all-powerful God in human affairs through things like earthquakes, floods, disease, and other disasters. So the Confucian view that certain core values rooted in family relationships are vital to a healthy society should not be all that unfamiliar to us.
Unfortunately, the term “family values” has also come to represent various forms of bigotry, such as homophobia, and authoritarianism. Family values are sometimes viewed as another way of imposing outmoded patriarchal values in which women are subordinated to men, regardless of ability or relative merits, and in which unjust hierarchical relationships, unbendingly severe laws, and social conformism and repression are the norm. Certainly Confucianism throughout its history came to represent a very patriarchal system which devalued women, emphasized rote learning and strict conformity, and was often responsible for the political suppression of rival systems of thought and even outright bigotry against non-Chinese people and cultures. It became a very narrow, close-minded, and oppressive system of thought. But this was the dark side of the Confucian tradition. The dark side of Confucianism and what are called “family values” need to be recognized and critiqued. However, we should not lose sight of the positive aspects. The Confucian emphasis on the five constant virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and trustworthiness need not necessarily be connected with bigotry and patriarchal repression. These Confucian “family values” had a vital role in uplifting the human spirit and steering human society (at least in East Asia) towards a more peaceful and harmonious way of life based on the fundamental building block of a loving family. It was these values that Nichiren praised in many of his writings as necessary precursors to the reception of Buddhism. Hopefully, we too can come to appreciate the continuing relevance of such values and find ways to incorporate them into our own lives in a way that is appropriate in our day and age wherein other values such as equality, creativity, progress, and tolerance prevail.
So again the issue is raised, can we really say that the fate of a nation or at least its government is dependent upon Buddhism? Throughout the history of Confucianism in China, the Mandate of Heaven has been given various interpretations. Some interpretations depended more heavily on the intercession of heavenly powers, while others took a more naturalistic position. Mencius, for instance, seemed to equate the Mandate of Heaven with what we would call the “will of the people.” It is not too hard to make a case for the view that virtuous rulers will govern wisely, gain and maintain the respect and trust of the people, and will not act against the public good for private gain. Such a government will be more stable and better able to weather a crisis than a corrupt government that does not have the people’s support and which weakens or even sells out the nation for short-term personal gain. Such a government will enjoy the trust and confidence of the people; it will therefore enjoy the Mandate of Heaven.
Does it make sense, then, to claim that one can receive the Mandate of Heaven by supporting a particular religion, in this case Buddhism? In fact, the example of Emperor Wu-tsung shows the opposite. He patronized Buddhism in the beginning of his reign and still had to contend with rebellion and war. So could one say the Mandate can be gained or loss depending on what kind of Buddhism was supported or suppressed? Such a claim seems very far-fetched and more than a little self-serving when made by Buddhists who are trying to win the patronage of the rulers and/or convince them to suppress rivals. But let us suppose that the issue is not Buddha Dharma but the True Dharma. The True Dharma is not just the ideas or teachings, much less the opinions, of the Buddha and his followers. The claim of Buddhism is that the True Dharma is the true nature of reality and the way of life and methods of spiritual practice that lead to an awakening to that true nature. Fidelity to the True Dharma is really supposed to mean fidelity to the Truth and not just to a religious system. The real issue should not be framed in terms of which religion will bring about a successful government. Rather, the real issue is what kind of a vision will guide any given government: expediency and self-interest, or fidelity to the Truth and compassionate action in service of the Truth? In this the Confucian and Buddhist traditions of good government can find common ground.
We cannot leave it at that however. Benevolent government, the main theme of Confucianism, has already been mentioned in the very beginning of the Rissho Ankoku Ron as one of the many methods proposed to end the suffering of the Japanese people. But even at its best, the benign paternalism of Confucianism proved to be no match for the uncertainties at the core of the human condition, let alone the natural disasters that were then and still are largely beyond human control. In addition, the Confucian tradition has often fallen short of this ideal, and has ended up being nothing more than an authoritarian ideology on the side of an oppressive status quo. So something more is needed. For this reason, Nichiren saw the True Dharma as addressing the deeper concern of the universal suffering of all sentient beings and its causes in greed, anger, and ignorance. The True Dharma, particularly in its expression as the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Teaching, shows the way to overcome this suffering by proposing that all beings in fact have the buddha-nature. In this view, we are not merely noblemen in need of an education in good government or commoners in need of governing as the Confucian tradition teaches. Rather we are potential buddhas and we should regard each other with great compassion and treat each other with dignity befitting the precious and interdependent nature of all life. This is the aim of Buddhism – not merely to foster good government and benevolence, but to enable all people to cultivate a deeper vision of what life itself is in order to overcome delusion and selfishness and instead realize this world as a pure land in which enlightenment is an ever-present possibility. In our age, government can no longer be expected to patronize Buddhism or even directly support it, but government can be expected to create the conditions wherein such a grand vision of interdependence and universal regard for the dignity of life can become the basis for a truly just and peaceful world.
Perhaps we can relate to the intuition that these agrarian mythic ways of thinking are trying to communicate: that human beings have the responsibility to create a just society that is in harmony with the natural world. If we create a society whose foundation is built on exploitation and conquest, greed and aggression, then we will have a society where every hand is lifted up against another and short-term gain overrules long-term stability. We need to govern our lives and by extension our societies by a higher standard than greed for power and wealth. The power of the gods, buddhas, and bodhisattvas is actually the power of our own wisdom and compassion. We realize this power by following the higher standard of the True or Wonderful Dharma that Nichiren saw most fully expressed in the Lotus Sutra. The Wonderful Dharma is not a sectarian creed or dogma but the realization that all beings are intrinsically worthy of our respect, compassion, and gratitude; and that the place and time to realize true peace, purity, and awakening is right where we are standing at this very moment. This may sound vague and abstract, but it is only realized in the unfolding of the concrete circumstances of our daily lives – in the way we fulfill our responsibilities, do our jobs, treat our families, spend time with friends, vote, shop, and contribute to various causes that effect the world around us. In this way we each create the integral harmony of Heaven and Earth beginning with ourselves and extending to the whole world.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
The Sutra Classification System of the T'ien-t'ai School
Competing Systems of Sutra Classification
The following are my own conclusions based on what I researched and considered about the T'ien-t'ai classification system of approaching the study and practice of Buddhism in such a step-by-step way:
I believe that there is more to the comparative classification systems than competing sectarian claims based upon the supposed authority of the Buddha. Each classification system could be viewed as a heuristic device for reconciling seemingly conflicting claims within the Buddhist canon and for discerning, evaluating, and assimilating the insights of Buddhism in a consistent and comprehensive manner. So the different systems should not be evaluated by whether they have the authority of Shakyamuni Buddha or whether they have sufficient proof-texts to back them up. Rather, the systems should be evaluated by how well they allow their respective adherents to develop and put into practice the deepest insights and highest aspirations expressed in the Buddhist teachings.
In Nichiren’s case, he believed that there were two distinctive doctrines in the Lotus Sutra that set it apart from any of the other sutras. The first was the teaching of the attainment of buddhahood by the shravakas and pratyekabuddhas because it is taught that all the Buddha’s teachings lead to the One Vehicle of buddhahood. The other sutras taught that the shravakas who had become arhats and the pratyekabuddhas who had attained nirvana on their own would no longer be able to develop the aspiration to attain buddhahood because they had become detached from all things and would no longer be reborn in this world or any other. So their inclusion in the One Vehicle represented the possibility that anyone and everyone could eventually attain buddhahood, even those for whom it might seem impossible. This promise of universal buddhahood caused Nichiren to call all other sutras Hinayana in comparison because their teachings tended to exclude or imply the exclusion of certain groups from ever achieving the highest goal. The second teaching was the revelation that Shakyamuni Buddha’s awakening did not occur for the first time under the Bodhi Tree but actually occurred in the remote past, a past so inconceivably distant that it is evident the sutra is talking about an unconditioned state that has no beginning or end. Nichiren took this teaching to mean that the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha is spiritually present even now leading us all to buddhahood and that the world we are living in is this buddha’s Pure Land of Tranquil Light. This means that unlike the other sutras, where buddhahood is a remote possibility or something that can only be attained in another world after death, the Lotus Sutra is teaching that buddhahood is something much more immediate and accessible if one has sufficient faith in the Wonderful Dharma. Nichiren believed that the T’ien-t’ai classification system showed that all the other sutras were leading up to these two teachings concerning the universality and immanence of buddhahood and that is what Shakyamuni Buddha had been trying to share with people all along.
The T’ien-t’ai sutra classification system, therefore can be understood as a way of highlighting the importance of these two doctrines in comparison with the teachings emphasized by the other sutras. These two doctrines of the Lotus Sutra, the attainment of buddhahood by those in the two vehicles of the shravakas and pratyekabuddhas, and Shakyamuni’s attainment of buddhahood in the remote past, are held to be much more important than the teachings related to rebirth in the pure lands (Pure Land school), or teachings emphasizing esoteric practice (Shingon or Tendai esotericism), the teachings of emptiness by analysis (the so-called Hinayana schools) or intuition (the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras), or the teaching of the total interpenetration of all phenomena (Flower Garland Sutra), or the teaching that all is consciousness (Consciousness Only school).
Today, it serves no purpose to argue whether one classification system is more authoritative than another, but we can still concern ourselves with which teaching best expresses the fullness of the Buddha’s compassionate insight. Those who adhere to Nichiren Buddhism believe that the Lotus Sutra, even if it did not originate with the historical Buddha, is the sutra that best articulates the Wonderful Dharma that lies at the heart of all the other teachings. This Wonderful Dharma or Truth is that the full awakening and liberation called buddhahood is a present possibility for all.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
The Buddha's Criteria for Evaluating Teachings
In that article I review the Buddha's rebuke to Mara that he would not pass away until he knew that his disciples (both monastic and householder) could uphold the true Dharma and correct those who misrepresented it, the Buddha's instruction to check claims about his teachings with what he actually taught in his discourses (sutras) and monastic rules (vinaya), and the Buddha's teachings to the Kalama's to not accept speculations, second-hand testimony, or arguments from authority but to only follow that which they themselves could verify as healthy and wholesome. I then relate these teachings of the Buddha from the Pali Canon with Nichiren's appeal to the three proofs of doctrinal testimony, reason, and actuality for judging whether or not a claim is authentically expressing Buddha Dharma. Here is the the excerpt:
Putting together this guidance from the Buddha for evaluating whether any teaching is in accord with the Dharma we come up with the “three proofs.” The first “proof” is that a teaching must be accord with what the Buddha taught. The second is that a teaching must be reasonable and in accord with what we know about our own lives. The third is that a teaching must actually lead away from harm and suffering and lead to welfare and happiness. Nichiren often cited these “three proofs” as a criteria for ensuring that what is claimed to be a Buddhist teaching is actually so. For instance, in the San Sanzo Kiu no Koto (Concerning the Prayer Services for Rain by Three Tripitika Masters):
Practicing Buddhism, I, Nichiren, believe that it is important to use reason and scriptural proof in order to distinguish the true teaching from false ones or to compare the superiority among the sutras. Furthermore, it is more important to have actual proof (actual happening as a proof) in addition to reason and scriptural proof. (WNS: D3, p. 205)
Nichiren applied the three proofs to the teachings of Honen and others who he felt had departed from the true intention of Shakyamuni Buddha. Previously it was mentioned how Nichiren used the four standards found in the Nirvana Sutra for judging the relative profundity of Buddhist teachings.
“Rely on the Dharma and not upon persons;
rely on the meaning and not upon the words;
rely on wisdom and not upon discriminative thinking;
rely on sutras that are final and definitive and not upon those which are not final and definitive.”
Between the three proofs and the four standards, Nichiren believed that the Buddha fully intended for his followers to double check any and all teachings and to scrutinize them carefully and to accept nothing out of blind belief or merely because it was taught by an honored teacher or because something has become customary or traditional. The true spirit of Buddhism is a spirit of seeking the truth rather than complacence and blind belief.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Today, what is the state of Buddhism? As mentioned before, there are very few countries that could be considered primarily Buddhist today. Mainland China’s reigning ideology is the dialectical materialism of communism. The same is true in Vietnam and North Korea. While there are many people who are nominally Buddhists in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, free market capitalism is more or less the reigning ideology. Buddhism has become little more than a cultural trapping, a moribund tradition relegated almost solely to the performance of funeral or memorial services. Most Buddhists in East Asian traditions consider Buddhism to be nothing more than a way of making sure that those who die are able to pass on to the Pure Land of Amitabha. This is the case for Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese Buddhists. The Lotus Sutra is revered, but usually only for the recitation of chapter 25 that deals with Kuan Yin Bodhisattva, the Goddess of Compassion, who can be called upon to help overcome worldly troubles and concerns and who is considered the handmaiden of Amitabha Buddha. The central points of the Lotus Sutra are not a part of the average teaching or practice of East Asian Buddhism, though occasionally Zen teachers might make reference to it. Shakyamuni Buddha, whether in his historical aspect or as the Eternal Buddha of chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, takes a distant second place to the veneration of Amitabha Buddha, and the teaching that this world is the actual pure land, the Pure Land of Tranquil Light, is reserved only for the few who delve into Zen practice and the demythologization of the Pure Land teachings and practices. Except for the minority who practice Nichiren Buddhism, it would seem that Nichiren’s fear that the veneration of Shakyamuni Buddha and the Lotus Sutra would be overcome by Pure Land piety and otherworldliness has come true. Attaining enlightenment in this life and thereby overcoming the sufferings of birth and death, the main point of Buddhism, has indeed taken second place to the goal of attaining rebirth in the Pure Land after death and to attaining worldly benefits in this life. Nichiren’s Lotus Sutra inspired vision of a society focused on bringing out the buddhahood in all beings in this life has not been realized.
Nichiren concludes his critique of Honen by pointing out that people have become very confused about what is an incidental teaching, such as rebirth in a pure land, and what is the primary point of Buddhism, attaining enlightenment through devotion to the Wonderful Dharma. They have turned away from Buddhism as a whole, to embrace a very small and relatively insignificant part of it.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
So it would seem that the most important thing is to revere the Wonderful Dharma and to awaken to its full significance. The Triple Pure Land Sutras make a point of excluding any who would slander it, and the Lotus Sutra describes the vast demerit incurred or merit made by those who slander or praise it respectively. Whether the Buddha directly taught these sutras or not, and whether or not there are literal rebirths in the Pure Land or the Avichi Hell, the point seems to be that we create our own misery to the extent that we deny the Wonderful Dharma whereas we can attain awakening through upholding the Wonderful Dharma. And what is this Wonderful Dharma? It is not simply a formula, text, or even a creed that one must believe without evidence. It is none other than the true nature of all existence, the reality of all things. This is what all buddhas awaken to, praise, and point out to all sentient beings using many skillful methods so that they too may realize that they are buddhas as well.
The Triple Pure Land Sutras’ intent is to provide people with a way to be reborn in a Pure Land where they can then awaken to the Wonderful Dharma. The Lotus Sutra directly expounds the fullness of the Wonderful Dharma that can be encountered here and now in terms of the One Vehicle and the unborn and deathless nature of buddhahood. So does it make sense to embrace the indirect way of hoping to encounter the Wonderful Dharma only after death while excluding the possibility of taking faith in and rejoicing in the Wonderful Dharma here and now? Does it make sense to claim that the Triple Pure Land Sutras should be used to turn people away from the expounding of the Wonderful Dharma in the Lotus Sutra? That would contradict the clear intent of the Triple Pure Land Sutras. This is what Nichiren was trying to point out in his critique of Honen’s Senchaku Shu. That the Pure Land teachings should not be used to overshadow the direct expression of the Wonderful Dharma is a critique that I believe still holds up today.
Taken from:
Nichiren's Criticism of the Senchaku Shu Part 1 of the Rissho Ankoku Ron Commentary
This is a little detour from my posting concerning my political/social/religious views thinly disguised as a commentary on an obscure religious text from medieval Japan.
I am a little disturbed by all the heated rhetoric (and some of what seem to be outright lies and fear mongering) concerning the health care debates. Maybe I am in need of more info - but I have a few thoughts I'd like to share and then I will post links to articles I think are worth reading. First my thoughts:
1. I am absolutely convinced that if Obama were not president then there would be no debate at all - no health care reform. Just spending on war and only war (probably we'd already be at war with Iran and North Korea by now). The 17% of our population that is uninsured would just be screwed. Mabye if those people would just move to Iraq we would give a %^$& about them. So perhaps President Obama needs to provide a better plan or better presiding over the Congress - but I credit him with at least getting this agenda on the table and pushing for people to do something about this problem that every other civilized free democratic industrial nation has done something about.
2. My wife from Japan and friend from Canada do not have horror stories to tell about their home countries health care and in fact in the latter thinks that it is inexcusable that we do not have a public health care system. There are even aspects of Japanese health care that my wife seems to prefer. I will have to get specifics from her again as this conversation was from a couple of weeks ago and I don't remember the details now.
3. Our country is always eager to go into massive debt in order to fight a war (in someone else's country of course - and esp. if they are Arabs or not-so-caucasion) but horrified at the idea of shelling out even a penny to ensure that our fellow countrymen and women (and children) might have health care. Also, I have read that it is a lie that health care benefits are being extended to illegal immigrants - they are still SOL. Don't worry - all those non-caucasions who speak languages other than English and snuck in here illegally to take our jobs (the jobs the people already here would not take anyway in many cases) will still be able to die in the streets without a penny from any of us - the world isn't totally being tilted on a new axis. I guess the lesson here is that we always have enough money to kill 3rd worlders, but God help you if you aren't in the upper brackets of the US social system because we certainly don't have any money to help anyone but ourselves.
4. It does concern me about overspending and plans that would cause more trouble than they are worth. That is why we need a mature rational national debate. I suppose many people are having that kind of debate. And then other people (mostly white people I think) are indulging in all kinds of side-controversies about whether President Obama is really a US citizen, or whether and how much he hates white people, or whether he is a Muslim in disguise, or else they are showing up at town-hall meetings to scream and rant and in some cases even bringing guns. Now I don't recall any town hall meetings about anything at all during the Bush years. But if there had been - I wonder how far the Anarchists or Black Panthers or other groups would have gotten if they screamed and ranted and brought guns into the area (even in states where that is legal). Mature rational debate yes - thinly veiled racist paranoia - no.
Okay here are the articles I found informative and of interest:
The Case for Postal Style Healthcare
Interesting points in this article - though I will grant that it made me wonder if the stresses of such a system would cause doctors, nurses, orderlies or patients to "go postal" - in a hospital no less.
There are links within that article that are good to look up especially:
The Trouble with Healthcare in Numbers
Now here is another article I found very helpful in setting the record straight:
Myths and Falsehoods about Health Care Reform
One last thing I'd like to point out - Buddhism-as-Buddhism has never instigated a war of conquest.
On the other hand Buddhist monks in China and Japan were instrumental in collecting funds for and directing public service probjects - the building of roads, bridges, and hospitals.
So which policy do you think Buddhists would support - going into debt to invade a country on the pretext that they had weapons they didn't really have?
Or
Trying to push forward some kind of feasible health care plan so that in the supposedly most advanced and wealthiest nation on earth people aren't left without coverage (when every other free democratic industrial nation has found the will and the means to make sure all their citizens are taken care of)?
That's all for now.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I would also like to note that I have met many sincere practitioners of Pure Land Buddhism among those practicing in Korean or Chinese schools or among the Jodo Shinshu (the followers of Honen's disciple Shinran). I would like to note that Chinese and Korean forms of Pure Land are not the same as Honen's (or Shinran's) exclusive nembutsu - and usually they are allied to the Zen schools in the lineage of Lin-chi (Jap. Rinzai) and buttressed by the teachings of the Flower Garland school and led by monks and nuns who follow the full monastic Vinaya as well as the Mahayana precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra. The followers of Shinran are in some ways even more exclusive than Honen but in other ways Shinran had (or expressed) a much deeper and profounder understanding of human nature in my view. I do not deal with Shinran's teachings in my articles on Rissho Ankoku Ron. Also, any individual practitioner should not be judged by the school they are a part of but should be met with in friendship and sincerity as fellow Buddhists with whom we may or may not agree when it comes to particular points. My essays are not to be construed as encouragement for bad manners or sectarianism.
Anyway, at the end of those chapters summarizing the Pure Land movement of Honen I conclude with the following:
It is not unheard of in the sutras for the Buddha to teach a disciple who cannot remember or practice many teachings to only focus on the most essential point. Usually these stories end with the disciple awakening to the meaning of a single verse or phrase and then by virtue of their enlightenment they come to realize the true meaning of all the teachings and come to embody the virtue of all the practices. One example would be the story of the monk Chudapanthaka who supposedly was too dull-witted to remember even a single verse and in despair was thinking of returning to the home life. The Buddha had compassion for him and taught him to simply sweep out the monastery while saying, “Sweep away the dirt” over and over again. Much to the surprise of the other monks, including his sharper but scornful older brother, Chudapanthaka realized that sweeping the dirt really meant sweeping the mind clean of greed, anger, and ignorance and he thereby became an arhat, liberated from birth and death. He was even able to form thousands of replica bodies to sweep the monastery, thus demonstrating his understanding to the other monks and also expressing the multi-faceted nature of his insight into that one phrase.
Mahayana sutras likewise abound in promises that anyone who upholds even a single verse or phrase will attain inestimable merits. So there are plenty of precedents in both the pre-Mahayana and Mahayana canons for the claim that a single simple practice can lead to enlightenment. Nowhere, however, is the claim made that other practices should then be laid aside or abandoned. Rather, the disciples are being encouraged to receive, remember, and live in accord with as much of the Buddha Dharma as they can, even if it is only a verse or a phrase. The idea is not to neglect everything else. Instead, by upholding a single verse or phrase the disciple would then gain access to the true intent of all the teachings and thereby come to understand and practice them as well. One must, therefore, be careful not to simply scour the sutras for an easy practice that will allow one to bypass everything else. Rather, one should choose the verse or phrase that will in fact provide the key to the rest.
It was Nichiren’s contention that Honen had made two fundamental mistakes. The first was to reduce all of Buddhism to the practice of the nembutsu to the exclusion of all else. This was a mistake because Nichiren believed that the nembutsu did not in fact express the Buddha’s true intent - the attainment of enlightenment in this world. The second mistake, a corollary of the first, was to slander the Lotus Sutra; the one sutra that Nichiren was convinced did in fact reveal the true intent. Honen did this when he advocated laying aside all other sutras, teachings, and practices other than the Pure Land sutras and the practice of nembutsu and insisting that they could no longer help people in the Latter Age of the Dharma. Put simply, in the Senchaku Shu, Honen performed a radical act of reductionism by teaching the exclusive practice of nembutsu and in doing so missed the essential point of Buddha Dharma itself by advocating the neglect of the Lotus Sutra.
The articles on the history of Pure Land are these:
Pure Land Buddhism in India and China
The Life and Teachings of Honen
The Pure Land School after Honen
Rejecting the Gateway of the Holy Path
Casting Aside the Miscellaneous Practices
Closing the Gateway of the Mahayana Sutras
The Band of Robbers in the Parable of the White Path
Lay Aside, Abandon, and Set Aside All but the Nembutsu
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
For me, Rissho Ankoku Ron is not just some esoteric 13th century Japanese Buddhist document that draws my academic/intellectual curiosity. Frankly I hate being called an academic. I am not. I am an amatuer scholar as I don't deal directly (most of the time) with primary languages and I don't publish my findings in peer reviewed journals, and even though I get deeply into the contexts I do so not out of academic curiosity but because I don't want to be fooled again by relying on other people who twist and obscure the texts and/or teachings for their own benefit or due to their own limited points of view. That is not academic or intellectualism - it is common sense and thinking for myself.
My interest in Rissho Ankoku Ron is more existential than academic. I engaged it a few years ago and wrote my commentary on it because it is on the one hand the most polemical of Nichiren's writings and on the other hand the least edifying or profound. If anything - it speaks to a pre-industrial mythic worldview that most secular irreligious people in the urban 21st century city I live in would find laughable (unless they are fundamentalists of some sort - in which case they would just dismiss Nichiren as a benighted pagan even though their own beliefs are much more primitive and unsophisticated than any medieval Buddhist). My thought was that if I could find anything sensible or helpful in this - his most challenging writing and some say his most important - then I could show that Nichiren is or can still be relevant to us all.
What happened was that I found myself very enriched in following up on Nichiren's sources and all the things he took for granted as a product of his culture. I also found that while I did not always agree with Nichiren or the details of his worldview - for the most part I found myself taking his text as a jumping off point for my own thoughts about how individual people, their societies, their worldviews, and the natural world impact one another for better of for worse. So this commentary is as much an explication of my own thoughts in dialogue with a radical 13th century Japanese monk as it is a way of unravelling an ancient text.
The excerpts I am posting here at fraughtwithperil are just my own thoughts for the most part. I am leaving out all the many pages of explanation of the context and assumptions of Rissho Ankoku Ron. But as I said, I found all that material very enriching in many ways and I hope some of you might look at it as well.
Now here is the next part:
In the Rissho Ankoku Ron, the guest (representing Hojo Tokiyori - the retired regent who was the actual ruler of Japan) is very upset by the host’s (representing Nichiren) accusation that evil monks have misled the rulers of Japan. To say this is to question the judgment of the rulers. So the guest wants to know who exactly he is accusing and on what grounds. Here we have come to the potentially subversive nature of the Rissho Ankoku Ron. Nichiren was very much in the mold of a Biblical Hebrew prophet. He "spoke the truth to power" as some people say today. The Hebrew prophets were not fortunetellers, though unfortunately that is how many people often view them. Primarily the prophets were charged by God to warn the rulers and the people that they were leading their country to ruin by defying God's demands. These demands almost always concerned fidelity to God and to God's call for justice. The prophet’s predictions were actually warnings of what would happen if the nation did not change course, and words of hope if they did repent and reform. Like the prophets, Nichiren came before the rulers of Japan with words of warning and words of hope. Unlike the prophets, Nichiren was not the representative of a deity but of the Buddha Dharma. He came before the rulers and the people with a call to fidelity to the Truth and to a way of life that would restore justice and compassion to his society based upon the teachings of the Lotus Sutra.
Nichiren was a patriot, because he cared deeply about the welfare of the people of Japan. But his patriotism was not the idolatrous nationalism that says, "my country right or wrong." Rather, Nichiren's patriotism was of the sort that caused him to risk his life by telling those in power what he believed they needed to do to align Japan with the Wonderful Dharma so that true peace and prosperity could be restored and maintained. Of course in doing so he had to challenge the status quo of the military government and its patronage of Buddhist movements which Nichiren believed were leading the country away from the true intent of the Buddha's teachings.
It is important to remember that Nichiren was not just persecuted for holding unorthodox religious views. In the first place, Nichiren's views, at the time of the Rissho Ankoku Ron, were not very far off from T’ien-t’ai orthodoxy. Rather, Nichiren's critique was subversive because he questioned the judgment of the ruling Hojo regency that controlled the religious establishment at that time. Military governments like the Kamakuran shogunate do not take well to having their judgment questioned, and Nichiren seems to have realized this would be the reaction to his criticisms, which is why he has the guest respond as he does in this passage.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
This article can be found (along with the rest of the Rissho Ankoku Ron Commentary) here:
The Subversive Nature of Nichiren's Prophetic Stance
“When we look at the world in the light of these passages of scripture, we see that the situation is just as they describe it. If we do not admonish the evil monks, how can we hope to do good?”
This is an interesting assertion on the part of Nichiren, which he will back up later with other passages from the sutras. He is claiming that in order to do good one must actively oppose evil. In order to uphold the truth, one must denounce and expose that which is a lie. This is not a call for passive resignation or to retreat from a corrupt society. It is, rather, a challenge to an active engagement against corruption and deceit.
We should ask ourselves how Nichiren's critique of the rulers and evil monks could possibly apply to us today? We do not live in a feudal society with emperors, kings, or regents. Furthermore, we do not live a society where all respect Buddhist monks and nuns. In fact we live in a society (in the USA anyway) that has repudiated aristocratic rule or rule by the military and where large numbers of people are deeply suspicious if not disdainful of any clergy, let alone Buddhist clergy. So how can what Nichiren is writing about hold any meaning for us?
The rulers in our age are publicly elected officials and the bureaucracy that supports them. I would also add the media and the leaders of big business among those who direct and disseminate the policies and ideas that influence our lives and shape public opinion. In this sense, politicians, captains of industry, and the media are the ones who now hold the primary power, and the responsibility that goes with it, to govern society in a way that is compassionate and in accord with the truth. Because of the separation of church and state they do not and should not be expected to support Buddhism or any one religion or sect or denomination over and above another. However, it is my conviction that the law of cause and effect is not a matter of belief or religious affiliation. What goes around comes around, we reap what we sow, and the golden rule is the universal basis for morality and ethics that is at the base of our system of laws and human rights. In two writings prior to Rissho Ankoku Ron, the Sainan Koki Yurai (The Cause of Misfortunes) and the Sainan Taiji Sho (Treatise on the Elimination of Calamities) Nichiren stated that the rulers of China before the introduction of Buddhism were karmically accountable for their actions because they were civilized enough to have embraced the humanistic ethics and values of Confucius. Nichiren specifically pointed to the five virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness as the moral equivalent of Buddhism’s five major precepts against killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and intoxication. In the same way, our secular nation-states, multi-national corporations, and worldwide media conglomerates should hold themselves accountable to commonly recognized standards of decent conduct and international law. If this is not done, as the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese, the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party, and other nations have learned - they only sow the seeds of their own destruction. I would say that as citizens and consumers in democratic free-market societies each of us also has a share in the responsibility once held only by the emperors, kings, shoguns and regents of the past to determine the policies and trends that our nations, media and businesses follow. We should ensure that those entities of which we are a part do not participate in or instigate evil themselves, even when combating evil.
I have talked about the rulers and expressed my view that we are in a sense the rulers and the Dharma we are held accountable to as a society is the Dharma of international law, human rights, and common decency. But who are the false and evil monks of this age? I would say that they are those who are responsible for teaching us our worldviews, values, morality and ethics. They are the priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, scientists, doctors, psychologists, and of course school teachers. Now Nichiren was not concerned with reforming other religions or even with converting other people to Buddhism since he lived in a society where everyone was Buddhist. His concern was with what kind of Buddhism people were going to follow - a false one that distorted the Buddha’s teachings or an authentic Buddhism that was in accord with the Buddha's teachings. We, however, live in a pluralistic society where Buddhism is a minority view and has only recently begun to have an impact on our culture and its worldview and values. As yet, that impact is not very strong, and may amount to no more than a fad. But I think that, Buddhist or not, our society should be committed to the truth and to a compassionate engagement with each other and the rest of the world. This is what our age's teachers should be held accountable for. This goes beyond religious affiliation. The commitment to truth, justice, and compassion should be a universal and deeply ecumenical endeavor that goes beyond particular dogmas. In promoting a commitment to truth, justice, and compassion (and not necessarily just that) I believe that we will be living in the spirit of the Rissho Ankoku Ron wherein the health and welfare of society is dependent on its fidelity to the Dharma, the true nature of reality.
The original source of these comments is this article:
]]>Yes it is sad that Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, has died. It is sad that Farrah Fawcett has died. It is sad that Ed Mcmahon (sp?) had died. It is sad when anyone dies - even celebrities.
And of course their deaths illustrate the nature of old age, sickness, and death. The things that come to us all as Siddhartha's charioteer told him after he sighted the old man, the sick man, and the funeral procession. We should reflect on these deaths as things that can come to us all.
As much as those celebrities lives have contributed to our culture in various ways (meaningful or not so meaningful) I hope that we do not forget or move on from the much more important deaths of Neda and the other Iranian martyrs who died for freedom of speech and for authentic democracy (or just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time in a country whose Islamic rulers do not at all believe in the value and dignity of human life - there's is a culture of tyranny of twisted hyprocrical laws and rutheless evil - yes a true Lawful Evil regime).
Some commentors have said (quite rightly I think) that Neda is not the first woman in an Islamic country whose barbarous death has been videotaped and made available on the web - but everyone is shocked because she was young and pretty. It is true that we should not only care about the young, pretty, and cosmopolitan. Still it is a part of our biological hardwiring to care more about the healthy and attractive youth - they are the future afterall. Biology is not sentimental - it is practical. But there is another reason, I think, why people around the world are more shocked by the video of Neda's death - because she appears so much more like us - not like some tribal person or a ghost in black or a distant image of a beheading on a soccer field (like those executions of women by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan). It is easier to identify with her and to realize that the common urban people of Iran aren't that diffierent in their hopes and aspirations than the people of London, New York, Paris, or San Francisco, etc...
Neda's death is not like the death of those celebrities - because unlike them she was not killed in the natural course of old age, sickness, and death. She was murdered callously by a regime willing to use terror to keep its thralls in line. She, whether she intended to be or not, is a martyr in the ongoing struggle for human freedom.
Frankly, I have not had the heart to watch the video of her death on youtube, I've only seen stills from it. I don't need to see it to be outraged. As it is I am listening to Tool songs for catharsis - "The Grudge", "Jerk-Off" and so on that express my feelings of outrage and the wish that I had the power to do something for the Iranian people who are not brainwashed dupes and who are struggling for freedom from totalitarianism and religious oppression.
Yes, the death of Michael Jackson and other celebrities is sad - a testament for all of us as to the human condition.
But Neda's murder bothers me much more, and it is for her that I am chiefly mourning.
I do truly believe that there are religions or at least religious people that uphold Law and Good and I see the teachings of the Buddha as pointing to that high standard. But then there are others who use the Law for Evil ends, and unfortunately the Islamic Shariah and those who claim to be its final arbiters whether in Iran or in the mountain and valleys of Pakisan and Afghanistan seems to be in keeping with that type. I know that to those who, as in Somalia, have lived lives of Chaos and Evil, that kind of Law seems like a respite, a bit of order an meaning that is better than the arbitrary violence they have known. But it is still Evil and Evil should not be tolerated. It cannot be fought with more Evil, but is something that must be subdued, broken, and finally healed and assimilated back into its empty elements. That is a discussion for another time, but it is what both Buddha and Jesus tried to demonstrate in their own lives.
Oh, after writing the above I discovered this:
article on how to have a non-violent revolution
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
************************************************************
I have written my thoughts about that elsewhere, but what I want to share here is my thoughts relating to the problem of Islam. In many Muslim countries a Muslim can be jailed or even killed for converting to Buddhism. Islam also invaded the homeland of Mahayana (many Mahayana sutras originated in regions like Afghanistan, Pakistan and other central Asian countries) and persecuted Buddhism out of existence. Even before then the Brahmans were leading a backlash against Buddhism and there is even some evidence of violent perscutions of Buddhism. I wonder if it was because of these kinds of situations that sutras like the Nirvana Sutra and others sutras that Nichiren cited argue that the King and the designated military and police forces (the kshatriya class) were responsible for upholding the Dharma and that for them it was better to take up swords, staves, and bows and to set aside the precepts. In other words, the king and his military and police forces were responsible for keeping the peace and preserving the freedom of people to uphold and practice the Dharma. Interestingly enough the Nirvana Sutra also says that though the white robed laypeople should take up such weapons they should not use them to kill - so is it advocating a show of force for deterrance or subdual but not the actual use of lethal force?
This is a troubling claim but one that is nevertheless found in Nirvana Sutra. Should military and police force be used to preserve or to gain freedom and democracy in the face of brutality and injustice that will not be swayed by any other means (like the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge or the rulers of Myanmar, North Korea, and Iran?).
Can there be a war or a revolution that serves the Dharma? Of course ultimately all things are the Middle Way without exception, but relatively those who commit unwholesome acts will still suffer the effects. As Jesus said, "Sorrow will come into the world, but woe to those through whom it comes."
In the Nirvana Sutra a band of Brahmans comes to King Senyo to slander the Buddha Dharma. He kills them all and thereby attains buddhahood. But actually the Chinese text says, "He cut off their root of life." This is a curious turn of phrase, and I have doubts that it means only that he killed them. The "root of life" could very well refer to the clinging and fundamental ignorance that leads to repeated birth and death. This could be a way of saying not that he killed them but that he freed them of ignorance. But it could be read either way, and perhaps my interpretation is stretching the meaning beyond what was intended.
As an ignorant being I would love it if some celestial army could come down out of the clouds and give the "what for" to the regimes of Myanmar, Iran, North Korea, and so on. And yet, there is within me the voice of the Buddha-nature that spoke through Shakyamuni, Jesus, St. Francis, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and others that indicates that this would simply perpetuate the path of the asuras and delay the true day of reckoning - the day of awakening. That day can never, I think, be brought closer by violence. Nor does it prevent violence (see the lives of Shakyamuni and Jesus), but it is a day that transcends all violence and oppression and within that day there is no beginning or end.
This day of reckoning is also, I believe, only accessible via faith.
Those without faith will be at the mercy of causes and conditions.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei