"How do we go about teaching Buddhism to folks who have ADHD or other learning disabilities, who have trouble focusing on more than a paragraph reading?"

This is an important question. Actually there is a story about the Buddha dealing with a person who had exactly that problem - he could not focus enough to take in and understand any of the Buddha's discourses. His name was Chulapanthaka. Here is a simplified retelling of the story of Chulapanthaka by Nikkyo Niwano:

There was once a somewhat dimwitted young man named Chulapanthaka who, with his more intelligent brother, went to the Jetavana Monastery to join the Buddhist Order. During his training, however, he could not memorize even a single verse of a sutra and was driven out by the older followers of the Buddha. As he stood sobbing at the gate, the Buddha appeared and led him back inside, handed him a broom, and told him to recite over and over as he swept, "Sweep away the dust," and "Take away the dirt." Day after day as he swept the rooms clean, Chulapanthaka tried his best to recite these phrases, but if he remembered "Sweep away the dust," he would forget "Take away the dirt." As months passed, however, he succeeded in remembering both phrases, and after doing that for several months eventually attained enlightenment. One day his brother, whom he had not seen for a long time, came to the monastery to visit him and saw a new light in Chulapanthaka's eyes and radiance in his face. Struck by these facial changes, the elder brother incredulously exclaimed that Chulapanthaka had attained enlightenment. Among the Buddha's followers were many great figures like Shariputra and Maudgalyayana, but nothing they did inspires us with as much courage as Chulapanthaka's transformation.
from Invisible Eyelashes

The original story from the Pali commentaries on the Dhammapada (I think that is where it is from) is more complex and much more fantastic, but the point is the same. All the teachings are to guide and encourage practice, they are not metaphysical propositions to be remembered and believed in. And the practice simply comes down to making good causes, avoiding bad causes, and purifying the mind. Even a phrase, or a sentence with two clauses, as in the Chulapanthaka story, can direct the mind, calm and focus the mind, elevate it into a more wholesome sphere, and then allow one to gain direct insight and see for oneself how things are, just as the Buddha did. Once one has directly seen the true nature, one can understand the true intention and point of all the complex teachings and methodologies of Dharma practice - but not from a conceptual acadmic point of view as doctrines to be memorized and passed on but as existential realities. One will see the Dharma and know it as easily as one can know the back of ones' hands.

Now granted there is, I believe, the danger of mistaking a shallow insight for a deeper one, or a temporary exaltation of mind for an insight. That is why some teachings point more directly than others in my view. But the principle doesn't change. Even the most sublime pointer does not need to be a difficult concept - it simply needs to point one in the right direction to see for oneself in one's own life what is the case. Nichiren taught that the Lotus Sutra boiled down in one age to Bodhisattva Never Despises simple greeting (in translation no more than 24 Chinese characters) of respect for all he met. In our age, Nichiren believed the pointer needed no more than the seven Chinese characters of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. Take that pointer to heart, let it be one's compass guide for contemplation - and all that matters will be revealed.

Still, that is not to say that there is no content at all to the insight that Namu Myoho Renge Kyo leads to. The content is elucidated in the eight volumes of the Lotus Sutra, the Lotus Sutra refers to other Lotus Sutras that are far larger. The content seems to be something ineffable that can't be encapsulated or exhausted by words. And yet, words are used nevertheless to inspire, guide, evoke a sense of how sublime and boundless the actual unborn and deathless awakening is. But how many words are really necessary? How few are too few? What do we need to assist pointing the practitioner in the right directions insofar as right view and right intentions and so on are concerned with respect to the fundamental practice of just chanting Odaimoku and upholding its spirit?

Do we need to know the ins and outs of ichinen sanze? Do we need to know how to authentically translate bonno soku bodai? Do we need to know all about the history of the Nichiren lineages in medieval Japan? Do we need to know how to discern the authenticity of gosho? How much scholarly work do we need to do before having a correct practice? Does one need a Ph.D. in Buddhist studies, or a bit of study, or simply a mentor one trusts? Or no study at all? Nichrien rules out that last option, by the way. He said that without practice and study there is no Buddhism. But how much is too much?

The liturgy of Nichiren Shu, I believe, really expresses what needs to be expressed about our teaching, practice, and understanding. I think it really lays out the most important view, intentions, attitudes, and way of life of a practitioner of the Lotus Sutra. In my view, one would do well just to really contemplate what the parts of the liturgy are saying, and when necessary to follow up on the allusions and references to make sure that one understands what the prayers, dedications, refuges, and vows are all about. These are all the most important of the facets of the jewel of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.

So my answer to people who may have trouble studying more abstract forms of Buddhism is to just study your own practice. Make sure you understand what it is that you are saying each day. Don't just say things by rote or without meaning them. Really mean what you say and make sure you are saying what you mean. I think this study of the practice itself is the most important study, and in many ways it is the beginning and end of study - to understand the practice and thereby to understand, open up, and awaken to the buddha-nature itself that the practice is leading one to, intimating, and expressing. Most importantly the practice is inviting one to see for oneself and to actualize for oneself this true nature. That is what needs to be studied.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

As Byrd noted, my response to Glenn was rather on the eggheady side of things.

But after thinking it over - my response really came down to some core convictions of mine that I don't think are all that complicated.

1. I think that the Buddha took advantage of all the spiritual methods of his day that dealt with calming and being at peace but he took it in a revolutionary direction. He used that calm peaceful mind to just see how things actually are and by awakening to that freeing oneself of the mental and emotional poisons that ruin our life. This awakening allows us to express the love, joy, compassion, and true peace that is our actual birthright.

2. This method the Buddha uses boils down to samatha (stopping) and vipassana (looking). We say, "stop and smell the roses." It's the same idea but taken to a rutheless clinical extreme of dropping all our self-interest, preoccupations, attachments, aversions, and assumptions and just nonjudgementally being presently aware of what is. This is easier said than done of course. It takes courage, maturity, and self-discipline.

3. The Buddha realized that there does need to be a way to facilitate the maturity, stability, self-discipline needed to just stop and look. That is why he prescribed a program consisting of a holistic healthy lifestyle called the eightfold path or the Middle Way. This can be explained in a simpler way as the threefold training of morality, meditation, and wisdom, or broken down into a system of 37 aids to enlightenment. But these all come back to the Middle Way of the eightfold path. The Buddha unequivocally stated that the only way to liberation is through following this path. I believe that. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be followed self-consciously, and in some cases it would be detrimental to do so.

4. Now there are some elements that the Buddha taught which do not fit into the eightfold path. One of these is faith, or sraddha, which means "trust" or "confidence." Faith is one (actually two in different modes) of the 37 aids to enlightenment. The Buddha realized that in order to take up the Middle Way and follow through with it, one must be motivated and must have deep trust and confidence in this Way and one's ability to accomplish it. The Buddha also realized that some people have a more simplistic and devotional orientation and if that could be utilized in the direction of faith in the Middle Way then such people could awaken as well, just as their more detached and intellectual counterparts - maybe even more easily because they wouldn't have to contend with so much conceputalizing and intellectualizing and second-guessing. I believe those who strongly emphasize just silent sitting or mindfulness to the exclusion of the role of faith are overlooking an imporant element of the Way - perhaps the key element as without faith one cannot even begin the Way let alone conclude it in the face of difficulties both internal and external.

5. The Buddha also taught the six recollections as a way of fostering faith, confidence, and to enhance one's motivation to practice. These are recollection of the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, and of the merits of generosity, morality, and aspiration to the heavenly realms. Perhaps the six recollections cannot in and of themselves lead to right view and the rest - mindfulness and insight. But they strengthen, direct, and inspire the faith that does lead to the emulation of the Buddha, the practice of the Dharma, and so on. I believe the recollection of the Buddha eventually evolved into Nembutsu, whereas the recollection of the Dharma can be seen as the prototype of Odaimoku. In fact, I think the recollection of the Dharma can be said to be the Buddha's own practice in a very fundamental sense - but that is another article.

6. The Buddha also taught the cultivation of the Brahmaviharas - boundless loving-kindness, boundless compassion, boundless sympathetic joy, and boundless equanimity. He taught these to those who wanted to be reborn in the heavenly realms in union with Brahma (the creator God). He taught them to those who needed to overcome hatred and ill-will. He taught them to the Kalamas so they could directly experience wholesome states of mind. In short, the Buddha realized that some people need to work on their emotional life and bring it into a more wholesome balance before embarking on the more detached and clinical method of stopping and looking. There are some hints in some discourses that the Buddha believed these could lead to awakening itself if taken to their ultimate conclusion. Others, the Mahayanists, came to believe that an awakened person would not have transcended these states, as though leaving them behind or outgrowing them; but rather the Buddha had consummated these states and naturally expressed them in his interractions with others without any trace of self-consciousness, self-serving purposes, or even any duality between self and other. I think these Brahmaviharas should not be underestimated or neglected, even though they are not part of the 37 aids to enlightenment or explicitly part of the 8-fold path.

So in short I see the Mahayana as a blossoming of the importance of the Brahmaviharas, an further awakening into the no-self nature and the non-duality of the conditioned and the unconditioned, and in many of its forms as a realization that if Buddhism is to be a Way of awakening for more than an elite few, the element of faith can be the Dharmagate that unselfconsciously allows for the development of the rest. Can faith and the cultivation of devotional methods be misused or misdirected to further exacerbate greed, hatred, and delusion? Sure. But that is when these skillful methods are no longer skillful and no longer an effective method. But that does not mean that Buddhism should not try to be skillful and should not try to use those methods that speak to the heart of the common person as well as the mind of the skeptical detached observer.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Glenn recently asked for my reaction to an article that he wrote regarding whether Buddhism is an anything goes affir?

It is quite a challenging article, and it is something that I have thought long and hard about from time to time. Glenn invited me to post my comment about this on his blog as well.

But I'd also like to share my comments here as well. So here they are:

The question you ask in the article is "We say Buddhist, but on what grounds, what basis?"

I think this is a very fair question. My own question has been: "When is an alleged skillful methods neither skillful nor an effective method of helping people understand suffering, cut off its causes, realize freedom, and cultivate the path?"

I don't think skillful methods can be dispensed with. I think that Buddhism does have just one taste, the taste of liberation, but to get to that requires many different methods and the liberation itself is a "you have to be there" kind of experience that cannot be pinned down. I do think its fruits or traces can be described. One can, in a sense, triangulate authentic awakening by looking for things like selflessness, equanimity, compassion, nonattachment, and so on.

I find Buddhism to be a living breathing culture whose aim is supposedly that awakening or liberation. That culture is certainly wheezing and gasping and in some of its forms is either dead or perhaps undead (by which I mean a rotting thing that moves though it should have been buried long ago and that sucks the life out of others rather than bestowing life). This can be said of any religious tradition though - they are cultures based on some awakening or liberation (on some level - or at least the appearance of some kind of salvation) that changes, evolves, mutates, dies, passes on old insights or values(sometimes way past the expiration dates), as well as old biases and prejudices, breaks up other biases and prejudices, and occasionally picks up new insights and values or picks up new biases and prejudices.

You start your investigation with an overaching premise: that Gotama was an unsurpassed scientist of the real. I don't know enough about scientific method, and I have never even read Thomas Kuhn's book (though probably I should), but it seems to me, judging from the Pali Canon that is all I have to go by, that Siddhartha Gautama was at least a deep empiricist. By this I mean that he did not arrive at awakening through some mystical revelation or scripture, nor through logic or speculative reasoning, but through his own direct experience based on meditative praxis (samatha and vipassana). This is empiricism but not in the sense of the materialistic or positivistic sense of people today - but more in a yogic sense. If meditation is an experiment and the meditation room is a laboratory, then yes I guess we could say Gautama was a scientist. I looked up "scientific method" on wikipedia though, and it states that it is a method of observation and experimentation based on testable hypothesis and able to be objectively verified. But was what Gautama awakened to objectively verifiable? Or was his awakening the fruit of a spiritual maturity that is inherently a subjective matter?

I like your way of expressing the four noble truths - that in itself is a skillful means. I see the four noble truths themselves as a skillful means of setting up a method whereby we can discern how things are really and be liberated by that insight.

I also agree that the four foundations of mindfulness are an effective means of awakening to our situation. I think all Buddhist practice should boil down to samatha (necessary to overcome negativity and cultivate enough focus and clearheadedness to observe impartially how things are) and vipassana (and this is when meditation becomes truly Buddhist when it leads to actual insight). I think when you get past the hype, spin, and packaging it can be seen that Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen and the rest all boil down to samatha vipassana.

But what about the six recollections (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, dana, sila, devas) or the recitation of the Metta Sutta or the Brahmaviharas (the divine abodes of boundless friendless, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity)? These are also found in the Pali Canon though they are not given the importance of the four foundations or the other 37 requisites of enlightenment. For that matter, was it the Buddha or later redactors that put the emphasis on the 37 factors over and above the Brahmaviharas or the six recollections? For my part I agree that vipassana or insight into the conditioned nature of dharmas that leads to detachment and liberation trumps the Brahmaviharas or the more devotional six recollections. Without that insight each of the Brahmaviharas can lead to its near or far enemies, and the six recollections can lead to increased attachment (and their corollary aversions) rather than less. And yet, I have to wonder about three things:

1. In terms of the outcome of the practice of the 37 qualities: Is the detachment of seeing that all dharmas are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and selfless all that we are looking for? Is equanimity really a supreme value that supercedes compassion? Or is compassion somehow integral? And if so, how does it fit into this detached empirical investigation leading to disenchantment and detachment?

2. In terms of helping people actually practice the 37 requisites: What about all those for whom the five hindrances of sensual desire, hostility, heavy lethargy, agitated worry, and debilitating doubt are so overpowering that they are not able to give this bare bones practice a try? Shouldn't other wholesome practices be introduced to help get people to the point where they are able to appreciate and take up the practice of being fully awakened to the real? Isn't this the point of the Buddha's "graduated discourse" wherein he taught people about the value of generosity, self-discipline, and aspiration to the heavenly realms, and then the value of renunciation? He taught all this and only then taught the four noble truths. So the Buddha himself apparently knew that some groundwork needed to be laid before getting into his core teaching and practice - at least according to the Pali Canon. If skillful methods are the downfall of Buddhism, then the Buddha himself is as much to blame as anyone else. And who is to say that the 37 requisites are themselves not just another skillful method, though a deeper and more comprehensive presentation? In the case of Bahiya, the Buddha simply taught, "In the seen only the seen, in the heard only the heard..." That seems to be the most direct teaching of all. If one is looking for "no-nonsense, no-frills, clutter-free methodology" the teaching to Bahiya makes the 37 qualities seem like a lot of busy work and self-conscious all too deliberate analysis and parsing.

In terms of bringing the entirety of ourselves to the practice: The practice of the 37 qualities assumes that we bracket or put aside our imaginative and emotional life (except perhaps as bugs to put under the lens of mindfulness until they evaporate away with the flow of causes and conditions). It certainly does not indulge the imagination or the emotions, and that is its strength. And yet, I think there is great wisdom, found as far back as the Abhidharma at least, of looking at particular types of people and helping them direct these parts of themselves to Buddhist practice. Why not utilize our imagination and emotions to, on the one hand, facilitate samatha and, on the other hand, to bring to the fore qualities that should be examined in greater depth? This is tricky, of course, because this can lead to catering to delusions and rationalizations of all kinds of conduct and base motivations. At the same time, if done skillfully, why shouldn't the hostile person cultivate friendliness? Why shouldn't a warmhearted person but simple person of faith use the six recollections to put their mind on wholesome inspirational models that will lead them to actual practice of vipassana? Why not have practices that can counteract specific character traits or hindrances, and other practices that can utilize a person's inclination and abilities and channel them in such a way that they lead to the development (perhaps even unwittingly) of the 37 qualities that lead to awakening? These methods are not even Mahayana innovations, nor are they only found in the Abhidharma. They too are found in the Pali Canon and I don't see why they shouldn't be given credence. Evidently those who created the current rescension of the Buddha's teachings that became the Pali Canon with its emphasis on the 37 requisites also saw fit to include things like the six recollections and the Brahmaviharas as well.

It is very fair to ask of all the Buddhist paraphenalia and procedures that have since arisen "how proximate are they and all that they involve to the zero point of wise investigation?" But I have to wonder, is a clinical detached investigation of how empty everything is really the zero point? Chih-i didn't think so. Chih-i thought the analytical analsis (and direct observation) of how all dharmas are empty is just the beginning. I think Chih-i was right.

You go on to say that "skillful means" are just a "clever ploy of later Buddhists to say and do, in the name of the Lord, whatever they wanted." Perhaps philologically upayakusala does mean "clever ploy" but I think that is an unecessarily cynical way of looking at it. As I mentioned, Gautama himself would be to blame for using them in the form of his "graduated discourses." Can skillful means go too far? Can they be used to rationalize and justify things that controvert the Dharma? I certainly agree they can. But primarily I think they are the pedagogical methods of a skillful teacher. That they have been and occasionally are used unskillfully does not mean that one should not try to use skillful means.

You mention the so-called "three turnings of the Wheel of the Dharma", I can understand that they help provide a certain perspective - but I agree that they are the passing off of an opinion as the Buddha's word. All the Mahayana sutras are that. I prefer the T'ien-t'ai schema of the five periods and eight teachings which are another opinion. I am not afraid to admit that these are opinions that arose as Buddhism developed and later teachers had to try to come to terms with what is and is not important, what is preliminary and what is vital. Your article is itself another attempt at this - cutting away the dross, pointing to what is vital and essential and what is merely of subordinate value or perhaps none at all. For my part, just as I am not afraid to admit that these are matters of opinion, I am also not afraid to embrace the ones that seem to be helpful to me insofar as clarifying practice and wholesome motivation and avoiding pitfalls and oversights. But certainly I reserve the right to second-guess, double-check, and keep a certain healthy skepticism. That is why I see myself as a modern Buddhist and not just a traditionalist taking everything at face value.

"Certainly, there is room for movement, adjustment to circumstance, intelligent application. Certainly; but to what extent? Is there a limit? Where is it? Where do the extreme points lie? Where is the responsible middle?"

This is the key question. When is a skillful method neither skillful nor effective as a method, and perhaps even detrimental? That is how I think of the question. You then lay out some premises so let me comment on those:

Premise #1: Gotama was a man. - I think this is unfair to the Gotama Buddha of the Pali Canon, the only one that we can really know. He was not a superhuman or a god or anything like that. But he also stated quite plainly that he was not simply a human to the brahmin Dona. Yes, I know, his actual response was something more like, "I will not become a human." The point is that he defined himself as one who is awake. This is the crucial difference. He attained a level of spiritual maturity beyond our usual experience of what it is to be human. A human capacity, yes. And no, I don't believe it was supernatural. But he no longer viewed himself in terms of the aggregates the way we do. There was a qualitative and revolutionary difference between Gotama the awakened one, and the way we usually think, act, and relate to ourselves, others, and the world. There are, I suppose, very down to earth and clinical, I suppose psychological or developmental, ways of describing this. But would they do that qualitative difference between a person still caught up in becoming and an awakened one justice?

Yes, the mythological portraits with their superpowers and freakish 32 and 80 signs are not really anything I can relate to literally. I view those who take them literally as a bit out of touch with reality. But I can appreciate that the folklore of ancient Indian culture was utilized to try to convey a very real revolution from becoming to being awake - the difference between Siddhartha the enlightening being and Gautama the Awakened One. I think we need to honor the old folklore for what it is, myth and poetry, but at the same time find a modern way to describe that qualitative revolution in a way that will continue to inspire people to take up the Way and awaken themselves without the drawback of having to cling to old myths in a fundamentalist way.

Premise #2 Gotama was an unsurpassed scientist of the real. - I already responded to this above. I agree with what you say here: "His basic teachings concerning these matters are irreplaceable and non-negotiable." I have the same conviction - even though unlike yourself perhaps - I do think it possible to candy coat them to make the medicine go down smoother. In addition, by basic teachings I would include the six recollections and Brahmaviharas and even the "graduated dicourse" which I often refer to as generic spirituality 101.

Premise #3: Gotama prescribed meditation, not religion. - I kind of agree with this, but I believe Gautama was wise enough to appreciate and utilize the aesthetic impulse just as he allowed for the ascetic one. The Buddha did not permit ascetic practices like starvation or acting like a dog or cow, but he permitted the dhutas as a more constructive middle way of utilizing the ascetic impulse. Likewise, the Buddha never set up a priesthood or asked to be worshipped, but apparently taught the six recollections and the graduated discourse which both have what some might call a religious element or at least the seeds of such. I do find it problematic when the religious impulse overrides and even does away with the meditative.

You say, "Religion tells stories and show pictures; it is narratological." That is fine with me, I think that is good and necessary. In the Buddha's day they had the Buddha's living example to guide and inspire, to attract and lead the way. Now we use stories and images to inspire and arouse bodhicitta. The problem is when the next step is not taken - the meditative step. Religion is also a way of celebrating and sharing how wonderful it is to have taken that next step and to see what there is to see. I don't know about you, but one of the nice things about being out walking around on the ground is to have fresh air and clear sky above. Do we want a sky with no earth to land on, or an earth with no sky overheard?

Premise #4 Gotama is not the Buddha. - The way I read this, you seem to see the Buddha as a strictly mythological construction. I don't see it that way. I see "Buddha" as the "Awakened One." The mythical Buddha is a personification of selfless compassion, but wasn't that what the humble Gautama was all about? Selfless compassion. If he was not, then there was nothing so special about Gautama at all that we should bother with him or his methods or insights or values. "Buddha" is a way of highlighting what it was that made Gautama worth listening to, and why his teachings and experiences resonate so deeply with us even now - because the Buddha is also our own selfless compassion when we do the work and awaken.

Premise #5: Gotama was an ironist; his compilers, strategists. - You say, "Coming from the mouth of Gotama, on the other hand, such supernaturalism doesn't make sense - at least not supernaturalism." I don't think it sounds strange at all. Gautama was a man of his times. Later you say, "One final possibility: maybe he was just dead wrong about some things. After all, Gautama was not the Buddha." Frankly, I do think he was just mistaken about some things. I think he mistook the unconscious narrative making function of the mind and in accord with his cultural assumptions believed them to be actual past lives of himself and the actual past and future lives of others. But I do think he was an Awakened One to that which is essential. He utilized this raw narrative material to reflect on life's essential nature and thereby awakened to the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless nature of all dharmas, and then went even further to the more postive awakening to the unborn, the deathless. I can forgive him his quaint patriarch pre-industrial worldview, because what he awakened to, what made him Buddha, was this insight into the conditioned and the unconditioned.

I have to bring this to a close now, but I look forward to any response you may have to this response.

In many ways I agree with you. In other ways, my approach is very different as you know. I just hope that I can make the approach I take (and the experiences I have had which led me to it) intelligible.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

This is just to share with anyone who is intersted in these things.

Among the things I love is funny stuff, heroic fantasy, sci-fi, role playing games and suchlike and within the past few months I have discovered three web comics that bring all this together:

DM of the Rings - this web comic uses screen captures from the Lord of the Rings movies to show what it would be like if Tolkien's epic tale was actually a Dungeons & Dragons game being played by a bunch of guys sitting around a table with no foreknowledge of the story Tolkien told (but with plenty of knowledge of the typical references to Monty Python and the Holy Grail that every fantasy gamer knows and loves).

Darths & Droids - this one uses screen captures from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and similarly portrays it as though it were a group of people (including a little girl and a theater major) sitting around a table playing a sci-fi role playing game. I find that this version is much more enjoyable than the actual movie - at the very least it actually makes more sense and is laugh out loud funny besides.

Order of the Stick - This one uses stick figures to portray the action of a D&D type epic adventure campaign. It starts off kind of crude and simple, but as it goes on it gets funnier (less inhouse D&D rules jokes), the art gets a little tighter and more intricate and experimental, and the story really becomes quite engaging as it take on epic proportions and the subplots are developed. I even buy the collected versions that have been published which have editional cartoons and background material. This is really the king of webcomics in my view.

Anyway, these may not be everyone's cup of Lapsang Souchong but I post their links here for anyone who might want to while away a few hours checking them out.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Still, as a practicing Buddhist and the facilitator of a practice group in San Francisco I do have a sense of what Buddhism can be in the modern developed world in the 21st century (or at least until everything breaks down catclysmically and we are all living Beyond the Thunderdome).

First of all, I think Buddhism is not going to be about big temples or megachurches (or megatemples?) or even big practice centers like San Francisco Zen Center. I really think Zen Center was a fluke - a fortuitous convergence of the times, culture, trends, and personalities. I think that era is gone. Even Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village in France came out of that era I think. Are there any more big self-sustaining Buddhist practice centers being established anymore now that there aren't a bunch of spiritually adventerous counter-culture types to support them? I don't know of any. Maybe I just don't know about it. Apparently now is the era of putting togther big polygamy cult compounds - not so much Buddhist practice centers. Anyway, from what I see and am experiencing, now is the time for small groups of practitioners getting together in homes, or community centers, or other rented spaces or even liberal churches.

I also think the time of monasticism is over. I think this is a shame actually, and I hope world culture will eventually develop an appreciation for the fruits of monasticism for both the individual and the community at large - even if that monastic vocation is not a permanent one but a matter of extended retreats. Anyway, what I am seeing is intensive householder practice. People who are in between monastics and laypeople as Shunryu Suzuki observed. People who try to live mindfully, and try to set aside time daily to engage in some form of Buddhist practice, and who even try to find times to go on more exteneded retreats (whether one day, three day, week long, month long, or even longer in some rare cases but without permanently leaving job and family).

I also see that those drawn to Buddhism (even those from traditional Buddhist cultures) are more interested in what its really about beyond the myths, rituals, popular piety, and the "health, wealth, love (or lust), and afterlife insurance" angle. They don't want to be scholars, they want practical knowledge that can help them find a deeper meaning in life right here and now. They want something to make them think and to inspire them - not just outlandish myths or dry analysis or wild speculations and dogmatic creeds. And they do look for guides who know the traditional materials but can help sort through them and make sense of them to people in this age and in this culture (by which I mean a primarily middle-class metropolitan culture).

So I say that the new Buddhism will require some new forms of the Middle Way in these areas:

1. A Middle Way between individual practice and big temple Sunday go to meeting practice. This Middle Way is the way of the small group meeting for practice and discussion. In some ways, this is what the historical Buddha probably actually did - gave short Dharma talks to small groups of renunciants and/or householders and then they would practice that teaching through various forms of cultivation (bhavana).

2. A Middle Way between the householder way and the monastic way. This is the way of incorporating Buddhist practice and teaching into a life of job and family with all its demands, challenges, temptations, frustrations, and rewards. This way may seem easier than a life of renunciation but is in fact more challenging and potentially more liberating if that challenge can actually be met. The Vimalakirti Sutra provides a model for this.

3. A Middle Way between an overly simplified or mythic popular piety and the more dry and complex scholarly analysis of the teachings. In this way, those who have plumbed the depths and navigated the expanses of the Buddha Dharma find ways to share the practical bottom line in order to inspire and guide actual practice in daily life. These teachings are imparted in talks and small group discussions, and all are invited to investigate the teachings themselves to the best of their ability and level of interest. The teacher then becomes a facilitator who empowers others to learn and apply knowledge on their own rather than a dispenser of dogmas and authoritarian instruction. In my experience with three Buddhist New Religions and the two traditional schools of Buddhism I have seen various different ways of doing this:

1. The discussion meeting could be a time for infomercial style testimonials followed by an indoctrination using only materials sanctioned by that group.

2. The discussion meeting could be more like a group therapy session wherein problems in daily life are used for reflection on how the Buddhist teachings can speak to and be applied to the situation.

3. The discussion can be centered on a teacher who gives a Dharma talk and may or may not provide time for other people to respond and ask questions (though usually this is done).

4. The discussion meeting can be a time for different people to have turns to do their own research on the topic and present their findings and reflections and to in turn elicit further discussion wherein everyone gets a chance to respond, ask questions and comment.

I wouldn't necessarily link any particular group with any one of those different formats. I have also seen that the various groups I have observed or have been a part of will use different formats depending on circumstances. At Faithful Fools I tend to use the 3rd format with time for discussion more often than not, but not always. At the San Jose Temple the talks after the services follow the 3rd format but with no questions or response (usually), but our study groups follow the 4th. Only one group I know of uses the first format, and that is not even universal in that group. Another group I know uses the second format, but I have seen other groups use that approach from time to time as well. What is common to all four is that they are each attempts to boil down and share Buddhist teachings in a relevant and practical way.

With that, I'll continue thinking more about this in another blog...

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

In the book, Kung divides each of these religions up into six paradigms from the time of their founding to the present day. On p. 144 Kung says: "I follow Thomas S. Kuhn in understanding a paradigm as 'an entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community.'" In the course of the book, Kung shows how former paradigms that were appropriate to earlier periods linger on, either casting a shadow over later periods or even being clung to long past their usefulness to the point of becoming very dysfunctional and even degrading (Kung doesn't put it quite this bluntly - he is much too much the diplomatic interfaith theologian).

This is very interesting, so I have started wondering whether it could be applied to Buddhism as well. In thinking this over, I realized that I had already divided Buddhism up into three paradigms (though I didn't think of it that way) in an article I wrote a long time ago for a journal published by the Won Buddhists. In the article I explored the differences between what I saw as a Hinayana focus on renunciation, a Mahayana orientation on compassion, and a New Religions focus on gratitude.

Now I am not writing as a scholar here, I am just thinking out loud, but I think I could also find five or six paradigms in the history of Buddhism:

1. The paradigm of the historical Shakyamuni Buddha's original teachings and original movement of wandering mendicant practitioners. This would predate any of the written canons that we have now - including the Pali Canon and the Agamas.

2. The paradigm of the established monasteries and their more scholastic orientation as typified by the so-called 18 schools of sectarian Buddhism in India. Theravadin Buddhism came out of this period. This is not to infer, however, that Theravada does not also have an international potential (as per the next paradigm) but I think in its pure Theravadin form it would be extremely difficult for it to adapt outside of S and SE Asia.

3. The paradigm of an international Buddhism as typified by the Mahayana movements in Central Asia, East Asia, and (much later) Tibet. I am thinking that this was really established at the time when these Mahayana communities outside India developed their own unique system of more or less self-supportive monasteries - for instance those governed by the Pure Rules of Huai Hai attributed to Baizhang Huaihai. I think that the monastic orders of Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese Buddhism are the present day survivals of these.

4. The paradigm of Buddhism as an established state religion. This was the case in Tibet and in Japan (esp. during the Tokugawa period). The vestiges of this can be seen in the traditional schools of Japanese Buddhism which relied on the danka or "parish" system but are now struggling to find their place in a world where church and state are seperated and their old functions are no longer viewed as necessary. The Gelukpas, in the meantime, maintain a government in exile, but no longer have a country to rule over and they too have been struggling to maintain themselves in a world that no longer really has a place for them outside of the hobbies of wealthy cultural elites.

5. The paradigm of the East Asian New Religions wherein charismatic figures have attempted with varying degrees of success to establish more universal and progressive forms of Buddhism. SGI is a partial example because from their founding in the 50's (as more than an educational society) until 1991 they were ostensibly a lay group connected to Nichiren Shoshu (a particularly authoritarian and aberrant form of Buddhism from the previous paradigm). Better examples, and ones that I think will be more successful in the long run, would be Rissho Kosei Kai and Won Buddhism.

In looking over these paradigm I find that each made important, in fact indispensable, contributions to world culture. At the same time, each of them has dysfunctional elements and/or elements that inhibit or even prevent their universality as well as many anachronistic elements (like a pre-scientific cosmology and patriarchal views about women).

Here is what I would like to adapt and to leave behind from each:

1. The first paradigm is difficult because we can't really get at it except through textual scholarship and archeology focusing on evidence from the second paradigm. And yet, it is important to realize that the true life of Buddhism is not found in that evidence but in the primary and direct awakening of Shakyamuni Buddha, the human being. And that possibly the actual historical Buddha's teaching was not as unilaterally monastic oriented and male chauvanistic as the second paradigm tried to make him out to be. The actual Buddha of history was probably not someone as focused on scholarly analysis and the laying down of hundreds of rules as the Buddha of the Tripitika. He may have been a lot more open to various skillful methods and diverse applications for many different kinds of people in order to lead them all to the same experience he had. This is what should be adapted - and the third or Mahayana paradigm may have been an expression and adaptation of this current that may very well have run alongside the second paradigm without being given an expression in the Pali Canon or Agamas. At the same time, we cannot and do not want to simply reproduce a Buddhism for 4th century BCE India as that world does not exist anymore. Plus there is not really anything to go on aside from guesswork and the systematized teachings of the second paradigm.

2. The second paradigm has preserved for us in the Pali Canon and the Agamas what is probably a fairly reliable (though perhaps filtered and biased) record of what the historical Buddha actually said and did. As such, it is a very human and practical, though rigorous, teaching that comes through. It is not entirely without supernatural elements and metaphysics, but does not rely on them. And its methods, such as mindfulness of the breath leading ultimately to liberation and awakening are such that anyone can put them into practice without having to buy into any belief system or special way of life and see for themselves whether they are effective methods or not. The modern Vipassana movement and teachings about mindfulness and the cultivation of loving-kindness are rooted but not stuck in this paradigm. The downside is that this paradigm insists upon a very strict form of monasticism that is adaptable only with difficulty and I suspect a lot of fudging to modern life, and particularly in non-Buddhist cultures and climates outside the subtropics. It also has a tendency to become overly scholastic and legalistic and has many patriarchal and even chauvanistic elements to it.

3. The third paradigm is where one finds the Mahayana innovations and flexibility that allowed Buddhism to cross over the Himalayas and spread throughout the Silk Road into Central Asia, East Asia, SE Asia, and ultimately to Tibet. It's emphasis on the bodhisattva ideal, the value of compassion in conjunction with wisdom, the use of skillful means, its rapprochement with the humanistic and family oriented values of Confucianism, and the self-sufficiency of the monastics (as opposed to relying totally on begging), and finally the creative synthesis of doctrine and practice among the East Asian Buddhist schools and later the Tibetan schools has provided models of Buddhist teaching and practice that people to this day find very inspirational and meaningful. The downside is that skillful means often got carried too far - to the point of amorality and antinomianism, the self-sufficient Sangha actually fattened itself with landed estates and political titles, and the doctrines and practices sometimes got so complex and demanding that only the elite could even think of engaging in them, other times the practices and doctrines got stripped down to the point where they were no longer truly challenging people to actual transformation but rather became tools for securing the individual or group ego. Many Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese temples harken back to this paradigm - though many times they have also been effected by reformers and progressives and so could be viewed as part of the fifth paradigm. I am thinking in particular of the Fo Guan Sha from Taiwan here. Whereas the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas would be a purer form of this paradigm (or at least that is my impression).

4. I don't actually have many positive feelings for this paradigm. I basically see it as a period of corruption, complasence, and stagnation. Though I suppose that these state forms of Buddhism in Japan and Tibet (in China, Korea, and Vietname the earlier paradigm was simply suppressed by a resurgent Neo-Confucianism). I guess it can be said that at least they preserved the traditions and teachings they had inherited from the earlier paradigm and remained engaged in promoting law and order and various cultural arts. So for instance, the traditional Japanese schools may be viewed quite positively as repositories of the great legacies of Buddhism at the height of its power and influence. There is much to learn from these schools, and many sincere, dedicated, learned, and deeply spiritual practitioners in these schools who are striving to pass on this legacy in a way that will meet the needs of present day people.

5. I have a lot of positive feelings for this paradigm but also there are many things to criticize (and ultimately I opted to join and become a minister in a more progressive version of a traditional school from the previous paradigm). Positively the New Religions have shown how to streamline and adapt the older traditions so that anyone and everyone can practice Buddhism as part of daily life. Many of the New Religions focus on gratitude, ethics, and engendering more positive relationships with one's family and society as opposed to simply focusing on renuciation, liberation, or rebirth in a pure land. In many ways, I think their adaptations of the older teachings and methods in a humanistic and egalitarian fashion for modern people is the hope for Buddhism's continued relevance in the modern world. The downside is that these groups are often too centrally controlled, too focused on a charismatic personality or the founders successors, they have too strong of a corporate ego, and all too often they eschew a deeper understanding of the Buddha Dharma for the more simplistic and accessible teachings of their founders. In some cases they can not even be regarded as maintaining a primary fidelity to the Buddha Dharma taught by Shakyamuni Buddha as they regard their leader(s) as trumping the authority and relevance of Shakyamuni Buddha and the teachings in the sutras.

My personal hope is that the traditional schools and the New Religions will both learn from each other so that the traditional schools will become more humanistic and progressive and the New Religions will deepen their understanding of the Dharma and fidelity to the original impetus of Shakyamuni Buddha's awakening, to the original practical teachings of the early canon, the universalizing and compassionate spirit of the Mahayana.

While I personally hope that the spirit of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo will be widely shared by all (even by non-Buddhists) I also think that it is positive and healthy for there to be so many different traditions, teachings, and approaches, as they all have something to contribute, and in many ways can act as corrective for each other if they are able to maintain a spirit of dialogue, mutual respect, and deep spiritual friendship that can transcend differences in views and methods.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

The fact is that you cannot credibly have Daisaku Ikeda as your mentor in life, if you are also learning about Buddhism from other sources - esp. Nichiren Shu sources. From the SGI point of view it is disloyal and undermines the unity of believers.

From my point of view, it has seemed to me that those who are open to learning from all sources have already decided that they are not going to have Daisaku Ikeda as only mentor in life, and I have to wonder how long they will be tolerated by their more true beliving members and by the leadership.

In any case, in Nichiren Shu, those of us who are ministers certainly feel a responsibility to learn, and teach, to foster study and practice. But at the same time I was told in Shingyo Dojo that, "We should always preach with the sutra in hand." This is a quote from the gosho by the way. In other words, we are not to have people just following our own opinions, but to lead them to the Dharma. We are to teach people not to follow people but to follow the Dharma. My own sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, some years back confirmed for me that people should "inherit the Dharma directly from the rolls of the Lotus Sutra." He has also said to people taking Jukai (reciving the precept to uphold Namu Myoho Renge Kyo) from him, "Let us study together." There is no presumption that one should pick a person, even a minister, as one's sole mentor in life. As in the Shugo Kokka Ron (On the Protection of the Nation) by Nichiren, we teach that in the Latter Age, the one teacher to rely on is the Lotus Sutra itself.

So in addition to this warning to SGI members who read this blog or my posts or the writings of other Nichiren Shu ministers, I must also offer a challenge. If you are belonging to a Buddhist organization that demands you must take a person (or even an organization) as your mentor over and above the Dharma, and you find that you cannot in good conscience do that, then how long will you be able to really remain in such an organization? Do you pick a person as your mentor for life, or do you follow the Dharma rather than the person? Can you choose the latter and still be a member of an organization that requests or even demands that you follow the person?

So there it is in stark terms: Choosing the person (as demanded by an organization) or choosing the Dharma?

This, by the way, is why I emphasize Jukai (receiving the precept to uphold Namu Myoho Renge Kyo). Jukai is what is important, not picking a mentor, or receiving a gohonzon, or becoming a member in some group or organization. Jukai is indeed taken in the context of a Buddhist lineage and a Sangha, but it is an act that goes much deeper than a commitment to a personal mentor or particular institution. It is a public avowal of a commitment to the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha, to the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Teaching, and to the Sangha of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth (who appear wherever they are needed and not just inside some organizational boundaries, but neither do they reject organizations, even their boundarylessness has no boundaries) - all contained in Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. There are no other rules or regulations or contracts or pledges to sign. No secret hand shakes or decoder rings. Nothing but a commitment to Namu Myoho Renge Kyo itself and all that is implied by it - something that we must work out for ourselves through our own faith, practice, and study (without which Nichiren said there could be no Buddhism).

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:03:20 -0400
From: Greg Palast
Reply-to: palast@mailings.gregpalast.com
Subject: Eliot's Mess and the $200 Million Bailout

The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Air America Radio's Clout

Listen to Palast on Clout at www.GregPalast.com

While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an 'escort' $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush's new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.

Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there's a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush's man Bernanke was using ours.

This week, Bernanke's Fed, for the first time in its history, loaned a selected coterie of banks one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee these banks' mortgage-backed junk bonds. The deluge of public loot was an eye-popping windfall to the very banking predators who have brought two million families to the brink of foreclosure.

Up until Wednesday, there was one single, lonely politician who stood in the way of this creepy little assignation at the bankers' bordello: Eliot Spitzer.

Who are they kidding? Spitzer's lynching and the bankers' enriching are intimately tied.

How? Follow the money.

The press has swallowed Wall Street's line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn't afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That's blaming the victim.

Here's what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the 'sub-prime' mortgage and it's variants including loans with teeny "introductory" interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called 'Countrywide' became America's top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chuck of these 'sub-prime.'

Here's how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 a month payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain't worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the "discount" they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. Grinnings move into their Toyota.

Now, what kind of American is 'sub-prime.' Guess. No peeking. Here's a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren't stupid - they had no choice. They were 'steered' as it's called in the mortgage sharking business.

'Steering,' sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called 'fraudulent conveyance' or 'predatory lending' under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.

But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hardy - it was OK now to steer'm, fake'm, charge'm and take'm.

But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to.

Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush's regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of "federal pre-emption," Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.

Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer's investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush's banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.

Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup's Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called "securitization."

What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinnings, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into "tranches" of bonds which were stamped "AAA" - top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really).

When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide's top man, Angelo Mozilo, will 'earn' a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars - he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.

But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide's stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks.

Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That's Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.

The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure - and got to keep the Grinning's house. There was no 'quid' of a foreclosure moratorium for the 'pro quo' of public bail-out. Not one family was saved - but not one banker was left behind.

Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo's Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company's stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.

And that very same day the bail-out was decided - what a coinkydink! - the man called, 'The Sheriff of Wall Street' was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.

Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, "Take him down today!" Naw, that's not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press - one was "Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer" - made clear to Bush's enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn't Bin Laden.

It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans:

"Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which he federal government was turning a blind eye."

Bush, said Spitzer right in the headline, was the "Predator Lenders' Partner in Crime." The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.

Spitzer wrote, "When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably."

But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story - of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all - now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun.

A note on "Prosecutorial Indiscretion."

Back in the day when I was an investigator of racketeers for government, the federal prosecutor I was assisting was deciding whether to launch a case based on his negotiations for airtime with 60 Minutes. I'm not allowed to tell you the prosecutor's name, but I want to mention he was recently seen shouting, "Florida is Rudi country! Florida is Rudi country!"

Not all crimes lead to federal bust or even public exposure. It's up to something called "prosecutorial discretion."

Funny thing, this 'discretion.' For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer - rarely done in these cases - was made at the 'discretion' of Bush's Justice Department.

Or maybe we should say, 'indiscretion.'

************
Greg Palast, former investigator of financial fraud, is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Hear The Palast Report weekly on Air America Radio's Clout.

And next Wednesday March 19, join Palast and Clout host Richard Greene on a dinner cruise on the Potomac River. For more information click here.

And this Sunday, at noon, on WABC-TV New York, catch Amy Goodman, Les Payne and Greg Palast on Like It Is with Gil Noble.

I have to say that when I have personally thought about what makes a good Buddhist leader, it boils down to a few things:

1. Someone who has a solid working knowledge, both theoretical and empirical of basic foundational Buddhism. It doesn't have to be Ph.D. level. Otherwise, why call them a "Buddhist" leader?

2. Someone with maturity enough to know their limitations (as you noted) and with a mature enough understanding of the universe to understand that sometimes the most optimistic prayers and wishes simply don't happen, no matter how sincere a person is. It also helps if they can express this in a compassionate way that can help direct each person they work with back towards the Dharma, and buddhahood.

Ideally, this would include pastoral training, but the key point is knowing when to say, "I don't know". Perhaps there needs to be an "emergency first aid" kind of pastoral training for "first responders".... not the kind of education that yields a metaphorical full fledged emergency surgery doctor, but a first responder who knows how to not make it worse, and to keep the "patient" alive long enough to get to better help.

3. Someone who can facilitate a group is extraordinarily useful. It seems to me that every sangha is going to have at least a little friction once in a while, even the best sangha, and a good leader can help faciliate growth instead of self-destruction.

The vehicle or path to humanity is one of them. Nichiren, in line with the basic East Asian teachings on this derived from Abhidharma and the sutras, comments that those who wish to at least be reborn in the human world (as opposed to falling into hell, becoming a ghost, or an animal, or a fighting demon) would be taught to take up the five major precepts for householders: not to kill, not to steal, not to engage in sexual misconduct, not to lie, and not to take intoxicants. Basically, this is the path of enlightened self-interest and basic humaneness and ethics. In Kaimoku Sho, Nichiren associated Confucianism with this basically humanistic outlook and goal.

The vehicle or path to the heavens is another one. Nichiren, again in line with Abhidahrma and the sutras, comments that those who follow the ten courses of wholesome conduct and who cultivate generosity and refined states of meditation can be reborn in one of the many heavens. The ten courses of wholesome conduct are:

1. Not to kill
2. Not to steal
3. Not to engage in sexual misconduct
4. Not to lie
5. Not to speak maliciously (so as to sow discord)
6. Not to speak harshly
7. Not to speak irresponsibly (as in gossiping, idle chatter, etc...)
8. Not to give in to sensual craving
9. Not to give in to ill will
10. Not to uphold wrong views (such as those that deny cause and effect etc...)

Like the human path the heavenly vehicle is about enlightened self-interest - invest in common decency, generosity (esp. to the religious and saintly to support their parasitic lifestyle), and the requisite amount of naval gazing and cultivation of "good vibes." This is what will get you into heaven. Oh, and according to the ten courses of wholesome conduct, that go beyond just the externals of the five precepts, not only should you uphold basic standards of ethics and etiquette but you should also try not to be a mean spirited selfish ignoramus. In Kaimoku Sho, Nichiren associated the later forms of devotional Vedanta (i.e. the Vaishnava and Shaivite forms) with the path to heaven or heavenly vehicle.

So strangely, judging by Nichiren's Kaimoku Sho, those practices that lead to humanistic happiness and even heavenly happiness could not compare that the practices and goals of even Hinayana Buddhism.

And here we get into the three vehicles as practices and goals that are specifically Buddhist and therefore able to bring people a more reliable refuge from suffering and the short-term happiness of the human and heavenly realms.

Of the three vehicles there is the vehicle of the shravakas or "hearers" - those who hear the Buddha's teachings and put them into practrice and thus become arhats or "worthy ones." This path or vehicle is identified in the Lotus Sutra with those who, unlike those on the human or heavenly paths, at the very least come to understand that all conditioned things can't bring total permanent satisfaction, therefore they cut off selfish craving, realize the extinction of suffering, and live in a way that is wholesome and wholehearted. The problem with this path is that it can be misunderstood to mean being aloof and removed from those who are still suffering in the six lower worlds (including those in denial in humanity and heaven).

The next vehicle or path is that of the pratyekabuddhas or "private buddhas" in East Asian Buddhism are understood to be those who either attain their own freedom from suffering without the benefit of hearing the Buddha Dharma or those who hear the Dharma but then go off on their own to work out its implications for themselves through direct insight into the workings of causes and conditions. So they are also known as "cause knowers" in East Asian Buddhism. These are usually portrayed as ascetic hermits. The "fool on the hill" is basically the idea.

The third vehicle is that of the bodhisattva who aspire to attain enlightenment for the sake of themselves and others. In the course of following up on this aspiration they may take up the monastic vocation, or become hermits, or do what they can as householders among the six lower worlds from hell to heaven. The bodhisattvas have no attachment or aversion for any of the causes and conditions within the six worlds - but they do engage them all and utilize all as skillful means for helping all beings attain liberation from suffering. They might seem worldly or unworldly as needed - but always as modes or methods of bringing about liberation. Nichiren and his contemporaries seemed to understand the provisional bodhisattva vehicle as a "gradual path" for the eventual amassing of merit and sufficient insight so that someday (as in after eons and eons) in some world where a Buddha is needed the bodhisattva will be able to take up that role and start the Wheel of Dharma rolling.

The One Vehicle of the Buddhas is the one that is the actual vehicle underlying the vehicles of the arhats, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha states that it is really the only vehicle. In other words, it is not an alternative to the three vehicles but is the underlying reality of which the three are just partial understandings. This vehicle is for those who realize not only that buddhahood is the true goal for all, but also realizes that buddhahood is not something that needs to be attained, gained, or built up. Instead it is the underlying true reality of life always and everywhere. Nichiren and his contemporaries saw this as the direct or immediate way of buddhahood - though it can manifest itself in terms of skillful means that encompass gradual practice for the sake of beings in all times and places.

A literal reading of the Lotus Sutra would seem to indicate that the One Vehicle does not necessarily encompass the human or heavenly vehicles. The Lotus Sutra asserts that all the Buddha's teachings are for the sake of the One Vehicle, but it does not say that those who don't hear those teachings at all are necessarily included. However, there are some clues that would indicate the inclusion of the vehicles of humanism and heaven. See chapters 24 and 25 where the bodhisattvas assert that they can appear as human teachers or heavenly deities for those who need such a teaching. Also see chapter 19 where it is stated that for those whose senses are purified all things can be taught in conformity with the Dharma. The mutual possession of the ten worlds doctrine of the T'ien-t'ai school also asserted that all worlds and path are interconnected.

Based on all this - I think that people can and should enter into the Dharma from wherever they are with whatever needs they may have. But it is also my conviction that through genuine engagement with the Dharma their aspirations and the scope of their understanding of "the real" will expand. Their horizons, in other words, will become as boundless as the Lotus Sutra itself. One may start off like the householder Sigalaka uninterested in anything beyond just a good way of leading a decent and rewarding life as a responsible worker and family member, but eventually the Dharma may cause one to become more "ambitious" in a good sense, in a selfless and altruistic sense. In light of this, I think we should not discourage people from chanting about the "things of this life" because the Buddha himself did not hesitate to point out good causes for worldly success or even for rebirth in the heavens, and certainly he encouraged householders to build up great merit through the good causes of praising, supporting, and upholding the Three Treasures (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha). But at the same time we should not limit Buddha Dharma to the six worlds either - as if that were the only reality. The six worlds are the partial view, and in Nichiren Buddhism they are not abandoned or left behind - but neither do they form a boundary or glass ceiling. They are rather taken up into a larger horizon - that of the Pure Land of Tranquil Light.

Many people in this world become great successes without ever hearing let alone chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. Most people will attribute this to talent, education, opportunity, success, and of course maturity and drive. If someone succeeds in paying off their bills, getting a decent job, finding a way to reconcile with difficult relatives and they credit it all to Odaimoku - what does that tell people? That the Odaimoku is a crutch for those who can't do what most people are able to do without it? That it is a form of magic or a placebo for those who otherwise would not be able to get their act together? And what of the many who have chanted Odaimoku for years (in and outside of various organizations) who still don't have their act together in a way that would impress the Donald Trumps of the world? Does that mean Odaimoku is not strong enough? Or that these people lack faith? I wonder...

If someone chants for something that other people are able to get without chanting through determination, talent, and hard work, or just through dumb luck - does that demonstrate the real meaning of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo?

If someone doesn't get what they chant for, or they get it and wish they hadn't (as per the Fantasy Island Syndrome) - does that mean Odaimoku is ineffective? Or does it mean Odaimoku is like a genie who is only going to cooperate when it suits them and in their own perverse way? Or is there something else going on with Buddhism?

For my part - I think it is sticking a round peg in a square hold to insist that Odaimoku should be limited to the viewpoint of the human and heavenly vehicles when in fact it is the One Vehicle that transcends and subsumes the three vehicles let alone the human and heavenly vehicles. I think that is why it seems to function so wonkily for many people - they don't understand that Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is not a genie, or a magic word, or the Japanese Buddhist verson of The Secret. Rather - it is an expression of bodhicitta and more!!! One takes it up at the peril of the karmic self of the six worlds. It opens up horizons that are far greater and more grounded than such a karmic self can imagine. It is very much a poison drum - and who knows which way the wind is blowing?

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Hell-dwellers will chant for the destruction of what they blame for their suffering.

Hungry ghosts will chant for what they believe will satisfy their craving - the next fix.

Animals will chant to satisfy their instinctive needs for security, sex, food, shelter, territory, pack standing, pack success etc...

Fighting Demons will chant to increase their power and prestige.

Humans will chant out of enlightened self-interest.

Heaven dwellers will chant out of love and gratitude.

In summary: Those in the six worlds chant to rearrange the furniture in the burning house.

Those aiming to become arhats will chant to be free of greed, anger, ignorance, pride, cynical doubt, and false views.

Those aiming to become pratyekabuddhas will chant to realize the interdependent selfless nature of reality so as to be free of suffering.

In sum: Those in the two vehicles chant to get out of the burning house.

Those on the bodhisattva path will chant with a selfless compassionate aspiration to enable all sentient beings to attain awakening to the true nature of reality.

The Bodhisattva chants to get everyone out of the burning house.

Those on the One Vehicle to Buddhahood will chant to skillfully express the true nature of reality.

The Buddha chants because in reality there is and never was a burning house because "in reality this world of mine is peaceful." (from the verses of chapter 16)

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

When I look for Buddhist teachers I am looking for several qualities, some professional and some personal.

On the professional level I am looking for people who really know what they are doing insofar as having a working knoweldge of the teachings and an ability to facilitate and lead Buddhist practice. I am looking for somone who has gone to a credible source, been trained by that source, and then given a stamp of approval by that source so to speak (teaching certificate, ordination, transmission - whatever). This does not guarantee that they will be the most knowledgeable person around or the most skilled or dediated practitioner and it certainly doesn't guarantee that they are enlightened or holy or anything like that. But it does mean that they at least made the effort to go through a training program, that they at least met certain standards and qualifications, and that they they have been vouched for by other teachers and practitioners that one respects or at least finds credible. I personally think it is even better if such a teacher continues to be responsible or answerable to the community as a whole and aren't just set up as independent autocratic authorities in their own right. On that path madness lies in my view.

Now I have sought out and found several teachers over the course of my life who were ordained as teachers by groups that I found credible and admirable (if not necessarily perfect in every respect). In fact, I have gone through such a training and qualification process myself with Nichiren Shu, so I can now speak as an insider about these things. So here's the deal from my side:

I have been checked to make sure I generally knew basic Buddhist doctrines and of course Nichiren Buddhist doctrines. In fact, I know quite a bit more than just the basics due to my own private studies - BUT no one has been in a position to vouch for that. If I want to receive a higher ranking in Nichiren Shu (i.e. recognition of that further knoweldge) I will have to take a formal test and prove to the satisfaction of Nichiren Shu that I do know more. This will hopefully happen one of these days when the advanced test and preparatory materials are translated into English (if I were fluent in Japanese I could have taken it some time ago).

I think to presume to set oneself up as a Buddhist teacher or "senior leader" or "minister" one should at least have basic knowledge of Buddhist teachings. In other words, let's say there is someone who is set up as a "Zen Master", someone that others will perceive as being a trustworthy source of Dharma teaching but it turns out that they make mistakes about the Dharma (hey, it happens), then those mistakes will get perpetuated with the authority of a "Zen Master." Such a person should, therefore, be very careful not to make mistakes and esp. when writing a book or article take the time to doublecheck their work or have someone more knowledgeable check their work.

Or suppose there are "senior leaders" in a Buddhist lay organization who are also set up as authority figures, but who don't know any Buddhism and make ridiculous claims about what is or is not in the sutras, even the Lotus Sutra, without having ever read any sutras for themselves - rather they are simply touting a party line. There is something seriously wrong there too.

So at the very least I expect a Buddhist teacher or leader to have some basic knowledge of Buddhism and the teachings of their own lineage. They don't have to be masters or experts or Ph.D.s Just a practical working knowledge will suffice. BUT they should also be the kind of people who can admit when they have reached the boundaries of their knowledge and are able to say to someone, "I don't know" or "I am not sure, let me get back to you on that." There is no disgrace in that, and it is infinitely better than making something up or taking a stance on ignorance.

As, or perhaps even more important, than being knowledgeable in Buddhist teachings as a Buddhist teacher, the teacher or leader should know how to facilitate practice. This of course presumes that they are proficient practitioners themselves. Proficient enough to know what works and what doesn't, and how the dynamic of practice (even a simple practice like chanting Odaimoku) can change over time. They should be able to model good practice, demonstrate good practice, point out pitfall in practice, encourage people to practice, and so on and so forth. If they can't do this - how can they possibly be a Dharma teacher?

It is important to note however that being a good practitioner doesn't necessarily mean that one is anymore enlightened or holy than anyone else. It just means one has a certain proficiency, skill, and experience in whatever practice methods the lineage they represent makes use of. And a leader or teacher doesn't necessarily need to know all the methods a lineage keeps in its treasury of practices - but they must at least know the basic primary and essential practice of that lineage. So for instance, I think I am at least fairly proficient in leading the chanting of Odaimoku, Shodaigyo meditation, and a Nichiren Shu service. Certainly I would not put myself on the level of those who are even more experience and able than myself - but I at least meet basic requirements and people seem to come away pleased with my efforts. However, there are several auxiliary practices I would not presume to put myself forward as a leader of, for instance the Hokke Sembo (a practice that I experience in Shingyo Dojo but which I haven't done since then and anyone interested will have to ask Rev. Faulconer or Rev. Barrett about). So again, a leader or teacher should know how to lead basic practice but should know and admit their limitations.

A leader (whether minister or lay leader) also needs to understand how to deal with basic group dynamics as facilitators of meetings and point people for building up a Sangha. They need to know how to handle difficult people who try to monopolize a groups time or dominate discussions or who bully others (hopefully not physically but I can imagine some crazy situations). One needs to be able to keep one's cool, have an even hand, be able to read people and situations, and respond in a firm and fair way in order to maintain not just harmony but good feelings in a group. This takes a certain amount of people skills and maturity. I am sure some basic techniques can be taught, but it really takes experience, maturity, and havng good examples to follow. At least that has been my experience at "learning" the art of facilitation. I am still learning of course and I have been doing it in different ways and capacities for 20 years now.

Now I have never been given training in pastoral counseling, but it is something that I really feel the lack of. I hope that someday I will have the time and money to attend a program and get whatever certifications one needs to get to do patoral counseling. Personally I think all ministers and perhaps even lay leaders should get this kind of training. But the fact is that at this point we don't, and I don't know of any Buddhist organizations in America where this is regularly provided much less made a requirement. And yet, we do end up or will eventually end up having to deal with things like divorce, substance abuse, mental illness, mental and physical abuse, sexual abuse, and of course the death of loved ones and other such tragedies. This is hard stuff. So we should try to read up on how to deal with these things, and perhaps do some volunteer work at clinics or hospices if we possibly can. But at the very least - what I expect a leader to do is do their level best to just be a good friend, to be a calm and compassionate presence, a good listener, and above all to avoid manipulating or being manipulated, and also to aboslutely avoid giving advice they are not qualified to give. A good leader MUST KNOW THEIR LIMITATIONS AND NOT PRESUME OR ASSUME EXPERTISE THEY DO NOT HAVE. A good leader MUST KNOW WHEN THEY ARE IN OVER THEIR HEADS AND KNOW HOW TO REFER TO THOSE WHO ARE CAPABLE OF HELPING. I say that in caps because this cannot be emphasized enough. Too much damage has been and continues to be done by people who presume or pretend that they know all the answers. What they really need is the maturity to admit that they don't know and must therefore refer to a hotline number when needed. They need to be a good friend and not a poser expert on everything with a magical spiritual silver bullet for every problem. It is the extremely immature and fanatical idealogues who presume to give advice when they should just be listening, who presume to have the magical solution when they should be referring someone to a counselor, a rehab or clinic, or perhaps calling the police or social workers.

So in a nutshell I exepct leaders to be vouched for by the other leaders of a credible community insofar as they have met certain basic standards and requirements (i.e. put in their time in training and done their homework) so that they can:

1. Present Buddhist teachings without making mistakes or going beyond what they know and presenting their ignorance and guesswork as the teachings.

2. Teach and lead Buddhist practice without setting themselves up as some kind of saint.

3. Facilitate group meetings without enthroning themselves as some kind of autocrat with unlimited authority over members.

4. Be a good friend and listener who can be there for others without presuming to have any answers they don't have and can refer people to the help they need when they need it instead of just resorting to wishful thinking or magical solutions.

5. All in all a leader should be someone with the maturity to confidently impart what they do know and know how to do with the maturity to admit their limitations.

6. A leader should also be open to learning more from the teachings and examples of those who are even more experienced, trained, educated, and mature than themselves; and in fact, they should also be open to learning from those they are leading who in some cases might have better qualities or experience or insight or caring than the leader.

As my sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, likes to say, "Let us learn together."

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

In the past I've made some comments on the story. I'm not going to do that in this installment as it is all action oriented and there was no real decisions to be made except whether to press on or not. I also want to make it clear that Ruby is not supposed to be Julie. Ruby is just Julie's character for the game - in the same way when Julie plays her Nintendo she operates a little onscreen character. I say that because I would certainly not want any of the things that happen to Ruby to happen to Julie, and when Julie has her character do things they are not necessarily always what she would do in real life. That is the "role-play" part of this - it's a game of pretend and game of trying out different actions and seeing what the consequences are in the safety of "let's pretend." The last thing I would want is for my daughter to ever have to go on what the military calls a "bug-hunt" or "seek and destroy" mission for terrorists or enemy combatants - even if we will be doing things like this in Afghanistan, Iraq, and perhaps Iran soon, for some time to come, maybe we will still be at war when Julie has grown up. For now, this is just a game and the orcs are not supposed to be the Al-Qaida and the caves are in an enchanted forest and not the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. At any rate, Julie has told me that she doesn't like war movies and big battles - that it's too sad. Horror movies, she barely bats an eys (she said "I am Legend" was kinda scary but not much) but the battle scenes in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings sends her out of the room.

Hopefully this means that, unlike Ruby, she will not ever be joining the Marines or the National Guard. Of course, I personally think that as Americans we should be proud of those who do serve their country in that capacity by following the dharma of kshatriya or warrior (and should therefore take care of them and make sure that we don't send them into combat unecessarily for for unjust causes - which is a whole other issue) . I just don't want my only child and daughter to ever have to do it. So I am glad this is just a game and/or cheesy fantasy story about hunting terrorists in mountain caves.

Anyway, here is the story so far:

“Quick,” cried Ruby, “I saw some of them heading down this way.” With that, Ruby charged down a leftward passage of the caves after the fleeing orcs, the ranger Blain and the bestial wereboar Burgis right behind her. As they moved deeper into the mine, Ruby glanced up and saw that the enormous bat the orc adept had been riding earlier that morning was hanging from a stalactite apparently asleep. She decided it might be best to leave it alone for now. The cave twisted and turned and at one point they had to cautiously climb down a steeply dropping shaft, but eventually they cornered the three orcs in a dead-end. “I’m not wasting anymore magic or taking any more prisoners,” announced Ruby, as she and Blain dispatched two of them with their longbows. Burgis ran in and messily finished off the last one with his axe.

Just then, an elf from further back up the mine began shouting for Ruby. “Ruby, come quickly, Sergeant Nyra’s been hurt!”

Ruby and her companions raced back the way they came, to find Sergeant Nyra resting against the cave wall, a bloody orcish crossbow bolt at her side. It had been pushed all the way through her right shoulder in order to extract it, and Nyra was now imbibing one of the healing potions the elvish patrol had come equipped with.

“Ruby, I’m okay,” Nyra said, as her commander came running up. “I used a magical flare of light to blind them long enough so we could get back out of the lower caves safely, but the orcs are trapped down that passage. We can’t go in after them because they’ve got the passage covered by their crossbows. We can’t go down, and they can’t come up.”

“No need to worry. You did a good job sergeant. We can handle this. Their crossbows are no match for my magic, and unless they have silver-tipped arrows none of them can harm Burgis here,” said Ruby indicating the wereboar impatiently waiting behind her. “You and your troops follow us down when we’ve cleared the way.”

Ruby then charged down the passageway casting magical protection over herself, Burgis and Blain again at her heels. Crossbow bolts bounced away harmlessly off her magical wards and as she burst into a larger cavern she gestured towards the orcs and a spray of rainbow colors flashed forth. This time, however, the orcs were prepared and all but one, who quickly passed out cold, looked away and were not blinded or knocked out. Ruby quickly brought forth her longbow as Blain jumped for cover behind a rock and Burgis charged past her with his axe held overhead and tusked maw roaring a fierce battlecry. Orcish crossbow bolts and arrows filled the air, but Ruby stood her ground as they either shot past her or bounced away harmlessly and returned fire with her own longbow. Blain also returned fire, and Ruby could see that Burgis had lost his axe and was now biting and goring a huge orc berserker wielding a greataxe, an axe that was not helping as much as he might wish against the tough bristly hide of the wereboar, who could only be permanently harmed by silver anyway.

Ruby could feel her magical protection beginning to weaken, so she joined Blain behind the cover of nearby stalagmites. At one end of the cavern an underground stream flowed under a rickety wooden bridge, and on the other side more orcs showered crossbows bolts on them. The orcs on their side fled, except for the one being torn into pieces by Burgis, and one enormous orc in blackened plate armor with a powerful longbow that only one of his enormous strength could possibly fire, obviously one of the orc commanders. Even with a dozen of Ruby and Blain's arrows sticking in his armor the orc chieftain continued to return fire until his orcs had crossed the bridge and then he too turned and ran across the bridge into the darkness on the other side. Then the orcs on the other side of the dark stream fled with their commander deeper into the caverns.

“Burgis, are you okay,” Ruby asked.

Burgis, though not mortally wounded, still looeds more than a little worse for wear after the fight with the orc berserker. “I’ve been better,” Burgis grunted.

“Well, you’d better take a healing potion all the same,” says Ruby, “we’re not finished yet.”

“Fair enough, but at least now I have this beauty,” Burgis replied, hefting the greataxe of his fallen foe, and slapping the head of the axe against his palm.

Just then, the only live orc remaining, the one knocked out by Rubys Color Spray spell, began to come to. “What should we do with him?” Blain asked Ruby.

“Have one of the troops bring him outside, and send him on his way,” Ruby replied.

Like the others before him, the orc’s weapons are taken away and broken and he is chased away by the other elves of Ruby’s patrol. The elves shoot arrows after him (though not into him) to speed him on his way home to the Empire of Iuz.

With that another section of the abandoned mine is cleared of orcs and the other members of the patrol come down to join Ruby. “Come on, they went this way,” Ruby says and leads her companions and troops deeper into the mine to route out the other orcs. They soon come to a split in the tunnels.

“Sgt. Alion you and five of your troops come with me. Blain and Burgis, you take the other five and head down that way,” instructed Ruby.

Ruby and her elves pressed on, and came into another cavern split by the underground river where once more they came under fire from orcs with crossbows hiding behind the rocks and stalagmites. The bolts once again bounced harmlessly away from Ruby, but Sgt. Alion is wounded, even as the elves returned fire. In the end another orc is killed and two others jumped into the underground stream to avoid capture and are swiftly swept away. Just then, Rubv hears shouts from another part of the caverns, sounding as though the others had run into an ambush, and then an eerie unearthly howling fills the caverns, sending a shockwave of dread into all who heart it.

“Quick, we have to get back to the others!” Ruby cried, leading her troops onward into the torch lit darkness and towards the awful sounds of combat and supernatural menace.

Ha! Cliffhanger. I'll post a new installment hopefully sooner than later because afterall this action Ruby leaves the military and meets up with a circus of crime, a medusa, zombie infestations, and Count Strahd the Vampire Lord of Barovia!

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

When I grew up I know that I watched Mr. Rogers. I don't know how much, but I think quite a bit before I was my daughter's age. I all but forgot about him until one day listening to the radio when Howard Stern sent one of his stooges (Stuttering John I think) to harass Mr. Rogers as he does to so many stuffed shirts and other celebrities. But Mr. Rogers was no stuffed shirt and was not even fazed. Stuttering John yelled out, "Mr. Rogers, wouldn't you like to gun down O.J. Simpson with a machine gun?" Mr. Rogers, without missing a beat and in a voice that was so calm and gentle, just turned the question back and said, "Would you?" Neither Stuttering John nor Stern nor anyone else could reply to that - their mean-spirited silliness had been deftly turned back on them. Howard Stern used to have that reply "Would you?" replayed every so often - but I don't recall him ever making fun of it. And the tone of it was amazing - it was the tone of a man who was not offended, nor was he even being condescending, nor was he being taken in. He was simply turning the question back. To me it sounded as if he were asking, "Even as a joke, is this something you should want to be doing?" It wasn't a dodge - it had become a contemplation of character. So simple and kind. No other celebrity even came close to respondinig in such a manner to Stern's silly pranks - most just got in a huff or laughed it off (at best). It was on that day that I realized that Mr. Rogers was really and truly what he presented himself to be - and something finer than most of us ever even aspire to.

When Mr. Rogers passed away I read the obituaries and tributes to him and was even more amazed at all he had done and accomplished. By all accounts he was truly a sincere, caring, calm and contemplative individual. A real bodhisattva, as we Buddhists would say. In other words, he was everything we would say a bodhisattva should be - except that he didn't explicitly teach the Dharma. In fact, he was a Presbyterian minister (I hadn't known that).

Now just yesterday I came across a little remaindered book that collected many things Mr. Rogers had said or written. I read through it in less than an hour and was just astounded. The book is called Life's Journeys According to Mister Rogers: Things to Remember Along the Way. I'd like to share some excerpts from it because they sound to me like how someone today would express the key teachings of Buddhism without at all referncing any Buddhist jargon or myths. Just plain universal language for all humanity.

So for instance the last verses of chapter 16 that Nichiren Buddhists recite for their daily practice has the Eternal Buddha (i.e. the True Nature of Reality speaking as the person Shakyamuni Buddha):

"I am always thinking:
How shall I cause all living beings
to enter into the unsurpassed way
and quickly become Buddhas?"

Now here is what Mr. Rogers says:

"I believe that at the center of the universe there dwells a loving spirit who longs for all that's best in all of creation, a spirit who knows the great potential of each planet as well as each person, and little by little will love us into being more than we ever dreamed possible. That loving spirit would rather die than give up on any one of us."

Another example, in chapter 20 of the Lotus Sutra there is a story of a Bodhisattva named Never Despise whose only practice is to bow to everyone he meets and say to them:

"I deeply respect you. I would never be disrespectful or arrogant towards you. Why? Because all of you are practicing the bodhisattva way and surely will become buddhas."

Now, Mr. Rogers:

"For a long time, I've wondered why I felt like bowing when people showed their appreciation for the work that I've been privileged to do. It's been a kind of natural response to a feeling of great gratitude. What I've come to understand is that we who bow are probably - whether we know it or not - acknowledging the presence of the sacred. We're bowing to the sacred in our neighbor.

"You see, I believe that appreciation is a holy thing - that when we look for what's best in a person we happen to be with at the moment, we're doing what God does all the time. So in loving and appreciating our neighbor, we're participating in something sacred.

"As I bow, I always feel like saying, 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.'"

In chapter 2 of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha states that there is one great cause for which the Buddhas appear in the world:

"The buddhas, the world honored ones, appear in the world because they want living beings to develop their buddha knowledge and insight and thus gain a kind of purity. They appear in the world because they want to demonstrate the buddha's knowledge and insight to living beings. They appear in the world because they want livinig beings to apprehend with the buddha's knowledge and insight. They appear in the world because they want living beings to enter into the way of the Buddha knowledge and insight. This alone is the one great cause, Shariputra, for which the buddhas appear in the world." (taken from Gene Reeve's translation)

Now, Mr. Rogers:

"Are you able to believe in a loving presence who desires the best for you and the whole universe?

"With all the sadness and destruction, negativity and rage expressed throughout the world, it's tough not to wonder where the living presence is. Well, we don't have to look very far. Deep within each of us is a spark of the divine just waiting to be used to light up a dark place. The only thing is - we have the free choice of using it or not. That's part of the mysterious truth of who we human beings are."

And of course Buddhism, and many passages in the Lotus Sutra, praise the bodhisattvas for taking time out for solitude and meditation. Some people mistakenly think Buddhism can be reduced to meditation. It cannot, but it is nevertheless an integral part of Buddhism - the ability to just be present without trying to add or take anything away from. Much of what Mr. Rogers says addresses this ability to be present in this way, but one passage addressed meditation itself:

"Here's a gift you may not have expected. It's a gift to give yourself. Sometime in your day today, try to turn off all the noises you can around you, and give yourself some 'quiet time.' In the silence, let yourself think about something. Or if possible...think about nothing.

"Most of us have so few moments like that in our lives. There's noise everywhere. There are some places we can't even escape it. Television and radio are problably the worst culprits. They are very seductive. It's so tempting for some people to turn on the television set or the radio when they first walk into a room or get in the car...to fill any space with noise. I wonder what some people are afraid might happen in the silence. Some of us must have forgotten how nourishing silence can be.

"This kind of solitude goes by many names. It may be called 'meditation' or 'deep relaxation', 'quiet time', or 'downtime.' In some circles, it may even be criticized as 'daydreaming.' Whatever it's called, it's a time away from outside stimulation, during which inner turbulence can settle, and we have a chance of becoming more familiar to ourselves.

"How many times have you noticed it's the little quiet moments in the midst of life that seem to give the rest extra-special meaning?"

Frankly, I'd like to cite the whole book. He talks about letting go, compassionately understanding others, accepting ourselves, the redeemability of even our worst qualities, and most of all about being loving and kind to ourselves and our neighbors. There is even one passage where he talks about something the Dalai Lama said that he really took to heart.

The point is that in reading these passages I realize anew what real spiritual maturity looks like and that it is possible to convey the key meanings of the Lotus Sutra and Buddhism in simple direct language without the need for jargon or esoteric allusions. Mr. Rogers is, I think, one of the 20th centuries most direct, deeply ecumenical, simple, unaffected, and supremely authentic of awakened teachers. In some ways I think he taught Buddha Dharma much more effectively precisely because he was not a Buddhist and did it so gently and inconspicuously.

I can only wonder how much of what I must have learned from his show rested in my heart and provided me with such a sense of recognition when I did encounter Buddha Dharma in high school and college?

I am also sure, that many kids may have had a similar recognition in encountering the best of other traditions as well when they grew up - including Christianity, the tradition Mr. Rogers was a minister in. Probably the Christianity they learned and practice looks very different from what most people think or expect or act out. It probably looks a lot like what the Lotus Sutra describes:

"With great compassion as their room,
Gentleness and patience as their robe,
And the emptiness of all things as their seat.
Doing this, they should teach the Dharma."

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

****************************************************************

I thought I would share how pleased I am by actual Buddhism on the ground, by which I mean offline.

Yesterday, I was truly pleased with the experience of Sangha I had both at the San Jose temple and at Faithful Fools, and it made me realize that evey now and then it is good to count one's blessings (or "benefits"?) and not take them for granted.

At San Jose we had our monthly meditation meeting and Buddhist breakfast. An old friend showed up whom I had not seen in a long time, so that was nice. For our meditation Rev. Matsuda (the son of my sensei who is now the head minister of the San Jose Temple) led us in some stretching excercises and then 20 minutes of silent sitting. We always begin and end the silent sitting with the chanting of Odaimoku, and afterwords there is a dedication of merit. Then we did some walking meditation in order to restore the circulation and stretch out a bit. Rev. Matsuda then gave us a Dharma talk on how to bring patience and understanding into difficult situations (such as dealing with surly salespeople).

The monthly Buddhist breakfast we have at San Jose after the medtitation session consists of rice porridge (with salt and sesame seeds if you want it), miso soup (often with potatoes), and different varieties of Japanese pickels (with soy sause if wanted). Sometimes people will bring fruit or doughnuts. We also have green tea. This is a nice time to socialize, catch up with people, get to know other temple members and guests, and to have a more informal discussion about the Dharma.

At Faithful Fools there are two regular people who regularly come to practice with me, and a few other people that I see from time to time. I noticed recently that the new meditation schedule that Faithful Fools posts on their door now includes my Sunday group with (Nichiren Shu) in parenthesis. The other meditation sessions during the weekday mornings are done in the Soto Zen style.

Because people come to the meditation hall expecting to meditate, I offer 40 minutes of silent sitting from 3 pm to 3:40 pm, though we always begin and end with the chanting of Odaimoku. After brief break we have a Dharma discussion from 3:45 until 4:30. From 4:30 until 5 pm we have a Nichiren Shu service just like at the temple.

I'd like to note that most everyone who comes to the Sunday meeting at Faithful Fools stay for the whole thing. However, I see the program as modular. Some people are not interested in silent sitting. They can come at 3:45 if they wish - for the Dharma discussion and chanting practice (the service). Some people do not like chanting or are initially put off by it. They can come for the sitting and discussion and then leave. It's even okay to come in late for the sitting, though they will have to know how to take a seat in the correct posture on their own and should not make too much noise when doing so. I never shut the door, so people can come in anytime. The only thing it would not be so good to come in late for is the chanting practice/service in the last half hour because we cannot stop in the middle in order to hand out a chanting book and show where we are.

Currently, for the discussion portion we are reading through, bit by bit, the gosho called "Conversation Between A Sage and an Unenlightened Man." This is a writing attributed to Nichiren that I find to be a great survey of Nichiren's teaching. I think that if Nichiren did not write it (and if so it seems like it is actually from the Minbou period), then I think it likely it was a pastiche based on things Nichiren did write put together by a Nichiren monk after Nichiren's passing to be a kind of catechism for new lay followers. I have always enjoyed this particular writing - it covers a lot of Buddhist basics, puts them into an overall perspective, and is very lyrical and even funny at times. I am really enjoying this opportunity to read through and talk about it with other dedicated Buddhist practitioners, because it is rare to get a chance to do that with the gosho offline with others.

During the rest of the week, my Buddhist practice consists of chanting Odaimoku before the Gohonzon each morning before I go to work, and I try to do a full service most mornings. During the day I chant Odaimoku as I am walking around the city during lunch or if I can find a quiet place where I can get away and just sit still without being interrupted. After work I try to find time to work on my articles on the Pali Canon teachings (in other words - basic foundational Buddhism) and to do some of the readings for the Sutra Salon (we are currently reading Red Pine's translation of the Diamond Sutra). My only other interactions with other Buddhists during the week is online.

So that is briefly what Buddhism is like for me on the ground at this time in my life - at least the externals of practice and interaction with others.

Time to go - work to do!

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei