ABSOLUTE WONDERFULNESS

March 8, 2010 Joe Isuzu 45 comments

EXPLAINING THE CAUSATION OF THE TEN WORLDS
WND VOL. II PAGES 204-205
The precepts of the Lotus Sutra are viewed from two aspects. First, they are precepts of comparative myo, or comparative wonderfulness; second, they are precepts of absolute myo, or absolute wonderfulness.
First, with regard to the term “precepts of comparative myo,” it means that, when the Mahyana and Hinayana precepts set forth by the Buddha in the first forty and more years of his preaching life are compared with the precepts of the Lotus Sutra, the former are seen to be “rough precepts,” while the latter are seen to be “wonderful precepts.” The precepts set forth in the various other sutras are disliked because the are precepts before the truth was revealed, precepts to be practiced over numerous kalpas, precepts of those forever predestined by nature for the two vehicles, while the precepts of the Lotus Sutra are the precepts of the truth, precepts for the immediate attainment of enlightenment, precepts allowing persons of the two vehicles to attain Buddhahood. When the latter are compared to the former, one can see which are rough and which are wonderful. Therefore we speak of the latter as “precepts of the comparative myo.”
THE FIRST THING
It cannot be an easy task to translate an ancient language into something a modern person can recognize as a coherent sentence that will resonate its meaning within the reader. That being said, what first attracted my attention to this passage is that, in my anally retentiveness, I noticed the conclusion is inconsistent with the premise. I’m not sure if this is because of a mistake by the publisher, the translator, or Nichiren himself. But the conclusion in this case should be that the “latter” becomes “precepts of the absolute myo.” This would make it consistent with other letters by Nichiren where he argues absolute over provisional in context with capacity and time.

One of those letters is On The Protection Of The Nation, WND Vol.II, page 102:
“Question: We are told to discard sutras that are not complete and final and adhere to those that are complete and final…”
“Answer: The words ‘complete and final’ or ‘not complete or final’ have different meanings depending on the context…”
Nichiren goes on to argue in this letter that sutras preceding the Lotus are valid contextually in terms of the capacity of those being preached to, but are incomplete when compared to the Lotus in terms of absoluteness. Without arguing what the term “expedient” can refer to in its various contexts, the pre-Lotus sutras are an austerity and offer a Buddhahood that is inferior to the Lotus Sutra’s:
“When Buddhist teachers who base their teachings on the sutras preached in the first forty and more years claim that such sutras are fitted to the capacity of the people, they do so because they have not yet understood the true nature of the Buddha’s teaching.” Page 118.
Nichiren makes this same case for the Lotus Sutra in very extensive arguments in The Object Of Devotion For Observing The Mind, The Opening Of The Eyes, and numerous other letters.
In The Teaching, Capacity, Time, and Country, Vol.I, page 49, Nichiren argues capacity/time contextually in terms of the wisdom of the teacher:
“If even Shariputra, the foremost in wisdom among the disciples of the Buddha, failed to understand people’s capacity, then how much more difficult must it be for ordinary teachers today, in the Latter Day of the Law! Ordinary teachers who lack the understanding of people’s capacity should teach only the Lotus Sutra to those who are under their instruction.
Question: What about the passage in the Lotus Sutra that says, ‘Do not teach this sutra to persons who are without wisdom.’
Answer: When I speak of understanding capacity, I am referring to preaching by a person of wisdom. Again, one should preach only the Lotus Sutra even to those who slander the Law, so that they may establish a so called ‘poison-drum relationship’ with it. In this respect one should proceed as Bodhisattva Never Disparaging did.”
It appears that Nichiren has “faith” that the Lotus Sutra will eventually lead those two to enlightenment even in a negative relationship.
What is unclear is if those seeds lead to Buddhahood in same lifetime. If not, the “poison-drum” is an austerity and is an expedient means. Nichiren’s caveat seems to be Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, i.e. treating people with the greatest respect. I’m not acquainted with how other organizations operate, but I’ll venture to say that the SGI-USA has the first half of this equation down pat.
THE OTHER THING
Here the translator refers to “myo” as “wonderful” which is a reading that I have seen from other Nichiren sects. I actually prefer “wonderful” or “wonderous” over “mystic” as those two are more accessible to a commonsensical, reality based daily life as it exists in today’s modernity.
We in the SGI-USA usually refer to Myo as “mystic” as in The Mystic Law. One explanation of the word “mystic” from an English dictionary describes it as this:
a person who seeks by contemplation and self surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.
And the explanation of “mystical” is:
transcending human understanding.
Therefore, “mystic”, by this definition, is the personification of that which is “mystical”.
So it would seem that when we Nichiren Buddhists refer to the “mystic law” we are referring to the personification of that which is transcendental to our understanding but is becoming integrated into our very person. But is that actually what we believe? When we refer to the “mystic” law we really think in terms of the “mystical” law, something that is apart from ourselves. And we don’t think of ourselves as “mystics”. Why is that? Is it because this law can only be understood between Buddhas and we don’t see every person we come into contact with in our daily life as a mystic? Perhaps. Words that have a nuanced meaning that may differ from culture to culture may be at times problematic. As a person living in a time of sharing vast amounts of information, there’s a big difference, to my way of thinking, between having the potential to become an enlightened individual and having the potential to become a mystic.

Uncategorized none

Comments

Written by Nancy about 6 months ago.

I always defined “mystic” (in Mystic Law) as beyond intellect, something that works, but I don’t know how. I never looked up the word. Now I’ll start calling it the “Wondrous Law.” I like that. I never thought of myself as a “Mystic.” I don’t even know what a “Mystic” is.
Do we automatically think of the law outside ourselves because we call it the “Mystic Law” which means all that stuff you wrote? If we start calling it the “Wondrous Law,” do we then think of it differently? If I define a mirror as “table,” can I still see my reflection?
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

“If I define a mirror as “table,” can I still see my reflection?”
Exactly the point; how do you define the words you use? The intention of a word is to invoke a response in order to communicate meaning, a distinct conceptual unit of language. And we string them together to make that meaning even clearer. But some words in each grouping have more impact than others. If I say to you “deepen your faith” and if you were raised as one of the multiple millions of Evangelical Christians, you might be hearing that as me asking you to use your free will to “relinquish to a higher power” than yourself. At the same time you have a different type of “faith”; that if you trip on a stone, you are going to fall in the same direction you always have. One is a “mystical” faith beyond understanding, and the other is common sense. As soon as my Buddhist practice becomes beyond understanding through common sense, I’ll quit because I refuse to practice bullshit mysticism. I’ll leave that crap to Deepak Chopra.
Written by Nancy about 6 months ago.

“As soon as my Buddhist practice becomes beyond understanding through common sense, I’ll quit because I refuse to practice bullshit mysticism.”
This can’t happen, can it?
Written by joe about 6 months ago.

“This can’t happen, can it?”
LOL, why do think Fraught With Peril exits? Greg wanted an intelligent, non-exclusive place to discuss Nichiren Buddhism. I know plenty of people who are exclusive, regardless of what they profess, and might as well be Evangelical Born Again Buddhists, precisely because of how they allow “faith” define their practice instead of the other way around.
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

Dear Joe:
How would you define faith?
Mark
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

“Dear Joe:
How would you define faith?”
Uh,..hmm,…well,… you might check out Redefining Faith and Redefining Faith Epilogue on dis here blog. But basically the Belief and Understanding chapter from the Lotus Sutra (once again, someone translated that chapter’s title into those English words) because it’s a pretty damn good metaphor for rational humanism in daily life.
Written by Nancy about 6 months ago.

Joe,
I meant YOU, you dumbass! Your statement is “If this ever happens to ME, I’ll quit.” My question is, how can your personal view of faith change? And if it did change, you wouldn’t quit because you would be an Evangelical Buddhist!
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

Nancy,
I didn’t realize it was you. I thought was a different Nancy. You’ve changed emails. But that doesn’t make me any less of a dumbass or a cupcake. How can your personal veiw of faith change? It depends on which way you want to go with it. IMO, if you want a faith that has anything to do with getting the most out of your Buddhist practice, you do it through diligent introspection and skeptical inquiry.
Written by clown hidden about 6 months ago.

Mystic doesn’t have to mean a person, something is mystic if it is beyond intellectual comprehension in other words a mystery.
I would say the person who is a mystic realizes or tries to realize the oneness of all things.
As buddhists we touch on that through the concepts of interdependent co-arising of phenomenon and ichinen sanzen.
I don’t at all think of the mystic law as something outside myself but rather as the nature of all things.
Wonderous law sounds more like something outside myself to me.
Written by joe about 6 months ago.

Clown,
okay, so you have redefined what the common definition of mystic means from the person to a thing which is what the term mystical refers to. Cool. As long as when you refer to it that way people understand that you have redefined it. As far as “wonderous” refering to the law, same thing. So it would appear that if either of us is try to make a point we shouldn’t assume that our intentions apparent should we?
Written by clown hidden about 6 months ago.

I don’t think I have redefined it. A mystic is a person certainly that is the first meaning. But when Van Morrison sang Into the Mystic he was not referring to any person.
Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary
Main Entry: 1mys·tic
Pronunciation: \ˈmis-tik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English mistik, from Latin mysticus of mysteries, from Greek mystikos, from mystēs initiate
Date: 14th century
1 : mystical 1a
2 : of or relating to mysteries or esoteric rites : occult
3 : of or relating to mysticism or mystics
4 a : mysterious b : obscure, enigmatic c : inducing a feeling of awe or wonder d : having magical properties
Mystic or wonderful, potato patato.
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

Well, I certain can’t argue lingustics if you’re going to play the Van Morrison card. (and potato is spelled the same, just pronounced different)
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

Dear Joe:
You will be disappointed because the faith taught in the Belief and Understanding Chapter is faith in an expedient. It is on a higher plane than the pre-Lotus Sutra expedients but an expedient just the same. Much of SGI and Nichiren Shu is based om this expedient, that we are all Buddhas. The real reality is something much more difficult to believe and difficult to understand.
Mark
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

“Dissapointed”
This one time I’ll let you argue a point on my blog if you keep it polite and relatively short before I rebute your statement. You might start with why you think I’ll be dissapointed.
Written by clown hidden about 6 months ago.

Yeah, it made no sense to drag Van Morrison into it. I will say this though, if you confine yourself to only preaching to people who have wisdom you can pretty much just stay home and watch t.v.
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

“…only preaching to people who have wisdom…”
I should gingerly bang my poison drum to the beat of The Beat Goes On, and according to Nichiren’s advice to be like Never Disparaging when doing so? In that case I bow to the wisdom and the potential of its vessels that stumble onto this blog.
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

Dear Joe:
You will be disappointed because you will fail to gain the fruit of unsurpassed Enlightenment with a faith based on the Theoretical Section of the Lotus Sutra [that there are many Buddhas throughout the universe]. On the deepest level, with a correct faith we are Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Three Bodied Tathagata.
Believing oneself separate or distinct from Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo Chapter, is not the utimate teaching of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin. Faith that retains even a trace of duality, is neither the ultimate teaching nor the ultimste faith in the Lotus Sutra.
The difference between faith [and behavior] that we inherit the ultimate Secret Law and faith [and behavior] that we are the ultimate Secret Law is greater than the difference between a newborn prince and a King of the law. It is the difference between Theoretical and Actual Ichinen Sanzen. it is the difference between the Soka Gakkai and the Kempon Hokke.
Faith in, let alone living the Fourth Chapter of the Lotus Sutra as the model of faith and behavior, without knowing the heart of the Lifespan Chapter and the ultimate Secret Law hidden in the depths, is failing to actually live the Fourth Chapter, let alone the entire Sutra.
Even chanting the Daimoku without a correct faith
is failing to both inherit and realize the ultimate Secret Law. Relying on a Living Master in the Seat of the Law, rather than Shakyamuni Buddha within your mind, is to deny and fail to believe in the Lotus Sutra.
Apparently, you have distanced yourself from this erroneous SGI faith and practice. Now, by all means, you should take it to the next step.
Mark
Written by robert ward about 6 months ago.

Mark, glad to see you have accepted the SGI version: “On the deepest level, with a correct faith we are Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Three Bodied Tathagata.” Now if you could just stop thinking that your Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo Chapter of the Lotus Sutra is better than everuyone else’s.
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

Dear Robert:
The Kempon Hokke’s faith and understanding is certainly deeper. The late Senchu Murano being a conspicuous example of one with a weak faith and shallow understanding.
Written by clown hidden about 6 months ago.

Mark,
When you say “Weak faith and shallow understanding” that just means you don’t agree with him, and since you are undoubtably correct everyone else must be wrong. Most people would not share that view.
“I’ve see all good people turn their heads each day so satisfied I’m on my way.”
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

No. Every phenomena reveals the ultimate reality. His explanation of the Ten Factors and the Object of Worship reveals the true nature of his faith and understanding. His translation of the Kanjin No Honzon Sho as well as the Lotus Sutra leave much to be desired.
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

Okay, in responding to Mark:
I am going to respond to issues and not the hyperbole. Also, if anyone can remember, I started this blog with issues that the logic in the passage above did not concluded in accordance to the premise, as Nichiren (or the translator) usually does. In response, I’ll give yet another example.
Mark says:
“You will be disappointed because you will fail to gain… unsurpassed Enlightenment…(no fruit) based on the Theoretical Section of the Lotus Sutra…”
(More hyperbole arguing separatism, which was not addressed at all until then,)
“Faith in, let alone living the Fourth Chapter of the Lotus Sutra as the model of faith and behavior, without knowing the heart of the Lifespan Chapter and the ultimate Secret Law hidden in the depths, is failing to actually live the Fourth Chapter, let alone the entire Sutra.”
Okay, now something to debate. I base my opinion that you are incorrect as “stated” because of both the content of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s interpretations of the Lotus Sutra’s intention.
Nichiren states:
“Nowhere in the entire Lotus Sutra do we find a passage suggesting that we should discard the first fourteen chapters, which comprise the theoretical teaching. When distinguishing between the theoretical and the essential teachings on the basis of the threefold classification of the entire body of the Buddha’s teachings, the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings were to be spread in the Former Day, and the theoretical teaching in the Middle day, but the Latter Day is the time to propagate the essential teaching. In the present period the essential teaching is primary, while the theoretical is subordinate. But those who therefore discard the latter, saying it is not the way to enlightenment, and believe only in the former, have not yet understood the doctrine of Nichiren’s true intention. Theirs is a completely distorted view.”
Four Bodhisattvas as the Object Of Devotion.
No duality. Everything of substance, absolute and otherwise, has a theory behind its’ existence. That’s a lot of provisional expedience. I can attain Buddhahood in this lifetime, provided I’m born.
Mark states:
“Even chanting the Daimoku without a correct faith is failing to both inherit and realize the ultimate Secret Law. Relying on a Living Master in the Seat of the Law, rather than Shakyamuni Buddha within your mind, is to deny and fail to believe in the Lotus Sutra.”
Nichiren states:
“The five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo do not represent the sutra text, nor are they its meaning. They are nothing other than the intent of the entire sutra. So, even though the beginners may not understand their significance, by practicing these five character, they will naturally conform to their meaning.”
On The Four Sages Of Faith
And I have no idea of where the “Relying on a Living Master in the Seat of the Law” statement, replete with CAPITALIZATION comes from or is about, nor do I care. I rely on myself, aided by my practice and friends.
Nichiren continues the statement above with:
“This doctrine concerning the theoretical and essential teachings is not my own, [but was expounded by the Buddha].
In reading your diatribes on your own blog and in your responses to other writers’ blogs, I can venture to guess that you are resolute in your beliefs and have a “faith” based upon those beliefs. You were born, life influenced you, and vice versa.
Written by L about 6 months ago.

Thanks Joe,
That was clear and enlightening.
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

First of all Joe, I wasn’t debating that you did indeed find an error in the SGI translations, I find them all the time. A glaring example is the poor editing of the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra. Also, I didn’t find fault with the wonderfulness of the passage you cited or your comments based on that passage. I find fault that you [and SGI], more often than not, base your faith on the Theoretical Teachings of the Lotus Sutra, an example being your citation of the Fourth Chapter of the Lotus Sutra as a model of faith. I never said to discard the Theoretical Teachings. What I did say was that to model one’s faith on the theoretical teachings is shortsighted and ultimately detrimental your well being.
Joe:
Okay, in responding to Mark: I am going to respond to issues and not the hyperbole. Also, if anyone can remember, I started this blog with issues that the logic in the passage above did not concluded in accordance to the premise, as Nichiren (or the translator) usually does. In response, I’ll give yet another example.
Mark:
It was an obvious mistake on the part of the SGI Editor. Why give it a second thought once you have already pointed it out?. More importantly, the passage, in light of the entire Lotus Sutra and complete body of Nichiren’s teachings, proves my point that the Essential section of the Lotus sutra contains the essence of the Sutra and that which we should use as a model of faith. Here the Daishonin points out the DIFFERENCE in the Wonderfulness of the Pre Lotus Sutra teachings compared to the Wonderfullness of the Lotus sutra.
Mark says:
“You will be disappointed because you will fail to gain… unsurpassed Enlightenment…(no fruit) based on the Theoretical Section of the Lotus Sutra…”
(More hyperbole arguing separatism, which was not addressed at all until then,)
Mark:
The very passage itself addresses seperatism [between the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings and the Lotus Sutra]. My point is based on the other several score passages in the Gosho on the superiority of the Essential Teachings to the Theoretical Teachings. Both the dual and the more profound non-dual Essential Teachings are employed in the Lotus Sutra and by the Daishonin. The parable of the wealthy man and his lost son, is the teaching of “faith” of the Fourth Chapter while the passage, “we have found the supreme jewel without even seeking it”, is the teaching on “understanding”. Limiting this discussion to faith, the point of this chapter is that through faith, one day we will inherit the estate of our father, through faith, even though we may be poor and lowly at present, we will, through diligent practice, become Buddha. This will be contrasted with the Essential or non-dual teachings that we have been Buddha since the infinite past.
Here completes my introduction to your reply. Please wait until I have complted my entire line of reasoning before rebuttal.
Written by Patrick about 6 months ago.

Nancy very good question, regarding faith. faith is a personal question and each of us has to answer that question on a personal level, as you suggest.
Nichiren teaches that faith is what ‘you’ believe. Nichiren also caveats that with, ‘Do no blame Nichiren in any way for your lack of faith’
Nichiren also gives concrete examples of what Nichiren calls ‘deep faith’ in many letters written to Shijo Kingo, for his manifestation of courage in the face of his personal obstacles, giving a direct example of ‘faith in daily life.’
I believe Nichiren provides a good example for individuals to develop a personal faith with Nichiren’s practice through his many letters or Gosho’s.
Myo has multiple meanings, The two that Nichiren use regularly are “wonderful’ or ‘mystic’ which are consistent with what the SGI-USA has taught since 1965; since I have been a member.
Nichiren explains he uses ‘wonderful because it brings joy to all life equally’ and ‘mystic because it is difficult to understand.’
Nichiren notes with the understanding of the mutual possession of the ten worlds; actual ichinen sanzen vs. theoretical Ichinen Sanzen; ‘Myo’ and ‘faith’ ‘directly leads to supreme and ultimate enlightenment,’ ‘in an instant’ and not eventually, in reference to actual ichinen sanzen.
As Nichiren says, “it is your faith alone that determines these things.”
It all comes down to ‘what you believe today’ and not what I or any one else believes or says today that determine4s your revealing your essential nature now or later. The same is true for each and every one of us.
Patrick
Written by Joe about 6 months ago.

Mark,
That was a clear and concise response.
I thank you for the restraint.
I realy don’t have a rebutal. We just disagree as to where our faith emerges from. I wil venture to say that we will never agree on the degrees of use from the essential and the theorectical.
That being said, I’m going to bed with the flu.
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

“Faith in, let alone living the Fourth Chapter of the Lotus Sutra as the model of faith and behavior, without knowing the heart of the Lifespan Chapter and the ultimate Secret Law hidden in the depths, is failing to actually live the Fourth Chapter, let alone the entire Sutra.”
Okay, now something to debate. I base my opinion that you are incorrect as “stated” because of both the content of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s interpretations of the Lotus Sutra’s intention.
Nichiren states:
“Nowhere in the entire Lotus Sutra do we find a passage suggesting that we should discard the first fourteen chapters, which comprise the theoretical teaching. When distinguishing between the theoretical and the essential teachings on the basis of the threefold classification of the entire body of the Buddha’s teachings, the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings were to be spread in the Former Day, and the theoretical teaching in the Middle day, but the Latter Day is the time to propagate the essential teaching. In the present period the essential teaching is primary, while the theoretical is subordinate. But those who therefore discard the latter, saying it is not the way to enlightenment, and believe only in the former, have not yet understood the doctrine of Nichiren’s true intention. Theirs is a completely distorted view.”
Four Bodhisattvas as the Object Of Devotion.
No duality. Everything of substance, absolute and otherwise, has a theory behind its’ existence. That’s a lot of provisional expedience. I can attain Buddhahood in this lifetime, provided I’m born.
Mark:
“Can” is the keyword, not “will”, or our “birthright”. The point is not that there is only non-duality because there IS both duality and non-duality. The point is that, with strong faith in the non-dual teachings of the Essential Section of the Lotus Sutra {and particularly the teachings hidden in the depth of the Lifespan Chapter] we will come to understand both duality and non-duality. You may have strong faith in the dual teachings of the Fourth Chapter of the Lotus Sutra but you will never understand the non-dual through faith in the dual. It is like SGI. Ikeda is the father. You the son, work hard cleaning the CCs, tabulating the statistics, collecting zaimu etc. and one day you will inherit the “wealth” of Ikeda’s wisdom. This is nonsense. basing one’s faith on the Fourth Chapter leads one to such erroneous thoughts and a cloudy mind.
Joe;
Mark states:
“Even chanting the Daimoku without a correct faith  is failing to both inherit and realize the ultimate Secret Law. Relying on a Living Master in the Seat of the Law, rather than Shakyamuni Buddha within your mind, is to deny and fail to believe in the Lotus Sutra.”
Nichiren states:
“The five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo do not represent the sutra text, nor are they its meaning. They are nothing other than the intent of the entire sutra. So, even though the beginners may not understand their significance, by practicing these five character, they will naturally conform to their meaning.”
On The Four Sages Of Faith
Mark:
Of course this passage may be contrasted to the following passages:
“There is a difference if one chants the daimoku while acting against the intent of this Sutra.” (MW vol 3, The Fourteen Slanders, pg 2070)
“Those who practice buddhism but adhere to distorted views destroy this loftiest of Sutras.” (MW vol 5, Reply to Soya Nyudo, pg 164).
“In the same way, one who chants the daimoku as the Lotus Sutra teaches will never have a twisted mind.” (MW vol 5, Letter to Myomitsu Shonin, pg 196)
“They entirely look up to groups of icchantikas and rely on them as leaders and, reverencing slanderers against the Dharma, make them national teachers (ie: Taking up the Classic Filial Piety of Confucious, they beat their parents’ heads and, while chanting the Lotus Sutra of Lord Shakya with their mouths, they go against the Master of teachings.” — Reply to Lord Soya
Since these latter injunctions may well refer to the reality of SGI today, the passage you cited [from The Four Stages of Faith] is hardly applicable to the Soka Gakkai members, let alone the leaders. Besides, you are off point. The point of this discussion is that faith in the Theoretical Teachings without faith in the Essential Teachings, is cause for regret. I suppose, you chose this passage from the The Four Stages of Faith, as damage control, to counteract your initial erroneous statement, that the model for faith is found in the Belief and Understanding Chapter. No matter, I am always joyful to both point out the errors of the SGI’s interpretation of the teachings while praising the Kempon Hokke’s. For allowing me this opportunity to do so, I am most grateful to you Joe. I don’t think you will be SGI for long, especially in light of the centrality of the bogus SGI Mentor Disciple teachings.
To be continued…
Mark
And I have no idea of where the “Relying on a Living Master in the Seat of the Law” statement, replete with CAPITALIZATION comes from or is about, nor do I care. I rely on myself, aided by my practice and friends.
Nichiren continues the statement above with:
“This doctrine concerning the theoretical and essential teachings is not my own, [but was expounded by the Buddha].
In reading your diatribes on your own blog and in your responses to other writers’ blogs, I can venture to guess that you are resolute in your beliefs and have a “faith” based upon those beliefs. You were born, life influenced you, and vice versa.
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

Joe:
And I have no idea of where the “Relying on a Living Master in the Seat of the Law” statement, replete with CAPITALIZATION comes from or is about, nor do I care. I rely on myself, aided by my practice and friends.
Mark:
It [Living Mentor in the Seat of the Law] derives from faith in such teachings as the Fourth Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, without being firmly grounded in the Lifespan Chapter. this has already been pointed out. You write:
“I rely on myself, aided by my practice and friends.”
Excellent! Your heart is where all Buddhas turn the wheel of the Law. Of what use is a mentor you have never met and are certainly not in intimate contact? On the other hand, you are in intimate contact with Namu Myoho renge kyo and Gohonzon. Ikeda is not your mentor, according to the teachings, not even your friend.
Joe:
Nichiren continues the statement above with:
“This doctrine concerning the theoretical and essential teachings is not my own, [but was expounded by the Buddha].
Mark:
“Answer: Chang-an writes: “Hence [T’ien-t’ai’s explanation of the title in] the preface conveys the profound meaning of the sutra. The profound meaning indicates the heart of the text, and the heart of the text encompasses the whole of the theoretical and essential teachings.” And Miao-lo writes, “On the basis of the heart of the text of the Lotus Sutra, one can evaluate all the other various teachings of the Buddha.” — On the Four Stages of faith
Never did I advocate discarding the Theoretical Teachings, let alone the Essential Teachings, [unlike masters Nichikan and Ikeda].
Long ago, I have set aside my own manner of reading the lotus Sutra and adopted Nichiren’s manner. For thisa reason, I point out to you that modeling your faith on the the Belief and Understanding chapter while ignoring the teachings of the Lifespan Chapter, pointing out understand what is shallow and what is profound, is following in the footsteps of nichiren Daishonin. I don’t know if you purposely left out the remaining part of the above passage, or it was merely an oversight. I tend to believe the former because, in my discourses over the years with SGI members and leaders, they tend to hide the truth in order to prove their points. Either way, I will use this opportunity to supply the rest of the passage for your edification and to defend what the buddha has entrusted to me:
“…When we distinguish between the theoretical and the essential teachings on the basis of the threefold classification of the entire body of the Buddha’s teachings, the pre- Lotus Sutra teachings were to be spread in the Former Day, and the theoretical teaching, in the Middle Day, but the Latter Day is the time to propagate the essential teaching. In the present period the essential teaching is primary, while the theoretical teaching is subordinate… But those who therefore discard the latter, saying it is not the way to enlightenment, and believe only in the former, have not yet understood the doctrine of Nichiren’s true intention. Theirs is a completely distorted view.”
We have thus seen two distorted views: The view of those who would dicard the Theoretical Teachings [and even the Essential Teachings, men like Ikeda and Nichikan]; and the view of those like yourself, many SGI members, and the Nichiren Shu, which places the Theoretical teachings and the Essential Teachings on the same footing.
Joe:
In reading your diatribes on your own blog and in your responses to other writers’ blogs, I can venture to guess that you are resolute in your beliefs and have a “faith” based upon those beliefs. You were born, life influenced you, and vice versa.
Mark:
You conclude with an Ad Hominim [“diatribe”). Is that not a sign that you have already been defeated? I dare not conclude with a similar attack for I deeply respect you. You will attain Buddhahood.
Mark
Written by clown hidden about 6 months ago.

Patrick,
I agree with what you wrote. It makes me think how different our faith can be even if we use the same words to describe it. The how and what we have faith in is conceptualized differently so every one’s faith is their own individual version. In the end it is only your own faith that can save you. The Buddha can plant the seed but you must water and weed the garden to see it flower.
Written by Nancy about 6 months ago.

Mark wrote about Joe:
In reading your diatribes on your own blog and in your responses to other writers’ blogs, I can venture to guess that you are resolute in your beliefs and have a “faith” based upon those beliefs. You were born, life influenced you, and vice versa.
Mark you are wrong about Joe. I often wonder why you and others believe you can determine another person’s faith based on your own life experience. No one can know what is in another person’s heart. Sometimes we can’t even figure out what is in our own heart. So how about you stop judging other believers based on your phoney baloney sect?
Nancy
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

Failing to correct Joe, the SGI, or even the Nichiren Shu for placing the Theoretical Section on a par with the Essential Section or for abandoning the Lotus Sutra all together ["The Lotus Sutra has lost its power in Mappo" -- SGI] I would be lacking in compassion. He asked me why I assert that he would be disappointed adopting the model of faith outlined in the Belief and Understanding Chapter, and I explained it to the best of my understanding. Certainly, I am neither contrite nor disappointed. I am however, dismayed you calling the Kempon Hokke baloney. We don’t teach Ikeda Daisaku is indispensable to attain Buddhahood, practically force people to see Tsuchiya videos, make grandiose assertions about the heritage of the Law only flowing through the slanderous perverted Gakkai. Now that is baloney. Baloney and kool-aid which I am afraid you have eagerly ingested. What a pity.
Written by clown hidden about 6 months ago.

Mark feels the need to correct people for imagined offenses,
“Failing to correct Joe, the SGI, or even the Nichiren Shu for placing the Theoretical Section on a par with the Essential Section or for abandoning the Lotus Sutra all together ”
and no one can convince him he’s wrong because in his mind Shayamuni and Nichiren insist he’s right.
He believes he will be another Nichiren Daishonin and nothing but time will convince him otherwise.
Written by Mark Rogow about 6 months ago.

“Mark feels the need to correct people for imagined offenses”.
Reverend Ryuei agrees with my view that the Nichiren Shu places the Theoretical teachings and the Essential Teachings on an equal footing, contrary to Nichiren. When I made this very same accusation on his blog, he wrote:
“Well perhaps contrary to your expectations I have not disputed much of what you said.”
The Ichi-Shoretsu debate [the equality of the 28 chapters of the Lotus Sutra versus the superiority of the essential teaching] has been going on for hundreds of years. It is undisputed that Nichiren believed in the superiority of the Honmon, so Nichiren Shu was forced to admit that, in this matter [as well as other matters], they do not follow Nichiren.
The SGI, on the other hand fails to admit that in many ways they fail to follow Nichiren, calling themselves, “The true followers of Nichiren”. The SGI’s offenses are hardly imagined, they are very real. Observing the torrents of rain we know the thickness of the clouds.
Mark
Written by bill about 6 months ago.

“It is undisputed that Nichiren believed in the superiority of the Honmon,”
Where is this information to be found?
Thank you
Bill
Written by clown hidden about 6 months ago.

From Martin Bradley posted by Franko at Buddhajones.com
Although there are schools that would prefer to translate the ideogram (myô) as having meanings such as “mystic, wonderful” or “without equal” in the sense that this concept is beyond comprehension. In this context the Universal Teacher Tendai explains the meaning of this ideogram from two points of view in order to demonstrate the depth of the Dharma Flower Sutra. The first meaning is comparative (sotai myô). This means that when the Dharma Flower Sutra is measured up to all the other sutras, then it is this sutra that surpasses all in its underlying profundity. Then there is the concept of (myô) as an absolute which is not only the common denominator of all existence but also its dynamism (zettai myô). This vision of the Dharma Flower Sutra cannot be compared to any other Buddha teaching because it integrates every aspect of the Dharma.
Written by Matty about 5 months ago.

Joe,
I lost interest in most of these comments because they went off…

Going back to your post, I don’t read the inconsistency in the logic.

To understand a lot of Nichiren, you have to go back to Zhiyi and Tientai theory. Nichiren in many cases is referring to specific teachings in texts like the Words and Phrases, Profound Meaning, and the Great Cessation and Insight. We only get the shorthand references to concepts that are fully spelled out in those texts. When they finally get around to translating Tientai, we are going to have a whole new level of Nichiren opened up to us. The whole Complete and Final/Not Complete and Final is an elaborate scheme that I believe is explained in the Profound Meaning. Then Nichiren builds off of that to identify NMRK. But that’s a different subject.

I have been collecting books on Zhiyi whatever I can find. There is a Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra outline by a professor named Shen that has been eye opening for me. Also Brook Zyporyn explains the logic of Tientai Buddhism. Then a few partial translations. There is one text from the 70′s that is out of print that alot of scholars refer to… Anyway…

The Comparative Myo here is referring to the comparison of the Lotus Sutra to the previous teachings. The emphasis is on the difference between the pre Lotus and Lotus precepts. ie. This is this, because that is that. This and that. I am me because I am not you. You are you because you are not me. Its the distinction that is the point.

The Absolute Myo is the aspect of the Lotus Sutra that is unarisen - the thing the Nirvana Sutra describes as True Self, Bliss, Purity, and Eternal. This is the teaching MarkR is referring to. The precepts of the Absolute Myo are a non-arisen Truth that, because of its nature, cannot find comparison. “Words fall silent before it.” I don’t know for sure, but I presume the Absolute Lotus Precepts would refer to the conduct of the Buddha herself (the efforts to make all beings equal to her).

I think that makes sense. ?
Written by Joe Isuzu about 5 months ago.

Matty,
I’m just learning how to use this new site so grab your socks…
Your reading too much into what I am saying.
The syntax is fucked up, that’s all.
Written by Matty about 5 months ago.

If I’m understanding your post and your comment, no, its not the syntax - it does make sense as it is. I don’t think its inconsistent. But, if you say so…
Written by Joe Isuzu about 5 months ago.

Marty,
From the beginning of this section of the letter and throughout the explanation, the “former” is referred to as the “comparative” and the “latter” as the “absolute” until the end when it is reversed in this: Therefore we speak of the latter as
“precepts of the comparative myo.”
Written by Matty about 5 months ago.

Joe, I think you should read this again carefully.

In the paragraph you quote that starts, “First, with regard to the precepts of comparative myo,” the “former” is the Mahayana and Hinayana precepts, ie. the “rough precepts”, and the “latter” is the “wonderful precepts.” Here Nichiren identifies two types of precepts.

The paragraph concludes, “When the latter [wonderful precepts] are compared to the former [Mahayana and Hinayana precepts], one can see which are rough and which are wonderful. Therefore we speak of the latter as “precepts of comparative myo.”

Again, the emphasis in this paragraph is on the comparison between the precepts of the Lotus Sutra and those that came before.

The terms “former” and “latter” are highly contextual, and in that paragraph, the “absolute myo” is not discussed. Only the distinction between the Mahayana and Hinayana precepts and the Lotus precepts is discussed, hence “comparative myo” ie. “myo precepts in comparison to Mahayana and Hinayana precepts”.

The discussion of comparative and absolute myo that follows makes this clear. Nichiren describe two interpretations of comparative myo. 1. In the first 40 years the Buddha taught both precepts to be practiced over numerous lifetimes and precepts for immediate enlightenment. 2. In the first 40 years the Buddha only taught precepts to be practiced over numerous lifetimes and the precepts for immediate enlightenment only referred to the potential that a person could at the end go from an ordinary being to a Buddha without changing form. Nichiren dismisses the first explanation because it would mean the Buddha was intentionally concealing a teaching. Again, this is a discussion of “comparative myo” so if you look at this passage carefully you will see that the subject of discussion is the nature of the distinction between the Mahayana and Hinayana precepts and the precepts of the Lotus Sutra.

In the next section, Nichiren discusses “absolute myo” and this refers to the function of the Lotus Sutra precepts, what it is exactly about them that makes them critical - that the Lotus Sutra precepts are the only means of attaining the full blown Buddha enlightenment.

Take note when in Nichiren’s career this was composed. This was when he was still a sort of Tendai reformer, not the Nichiren who had a fully developed teaching later on. I’m going to suggest the sort of theory he dwells on here is characteristic of his earlier writings - basically its heavy on Tientai theory. That’s really what he is doing here, he is explaining Tientai theory.

Of course, I may be reading this all wrong.
Written by Matty about 5 months ago.

Just to make clear something I glazed over, the “comparative myo” is meaning the precepts of the Lotus Sutra are wonderful in comparison to the precepts that came before. Why are they comparatively wonderful? Because by function, they lead directly to immediate enlightenment, and therefore they are called “absolute myo”.
Written by Joe Isuzu about 5 months ago.

Matty,
Okay. I agree with everything, and always have, except the syntax:

“The precepts of the Lotus Sutra are viewed from two aspects. First (former), they are precepts of comparative myo (former), or comparative wonderfulness (former); second (latter), they are precepts of absolute myo (latter), or absolute wonderfulness (latter).
First (former), with regard to the term “precepts of comparative myo (former),” it means that, when the Mahyana and Hinayana precepts set forth by the Buddha in the first forty and more years of his preaching life are compared with the precepts of the Lotus Sutra (latter), the former (precepts of comparative myo) are seen to be “rough precepts,” while the latter (precepts of the absolute myo) are seen to be “wonderful precepts.” The precepts set forth in the various other sutras are disliked because the are precepts before (former) the truth was revealed, precepts to be practiced over numerous kalpas, precepts of those forever predestined by nature for the two vehicles, while the precepts of the Lotus Sutra (latter) are the precepts of the truth, precepts for the immediate attainment of enlightenment, precepts allowing persons of the two vehicles to attain Buddhahood. When the latter (precepts of the absolute myo) are compared to the former (precepts of the comparative myo), one can see which are rough (precepts of comparative myo and still former) and which are wonderful (precepts of the absolute myo and still latter).

Therefore we speak of the latter as…(you finish it)”

There is no logical reason, after the train of thought set up, to make the conclusion that the word “latter” now suddenly refers to “the precepts comparative myo” when it has always and continues to refer to “the precepts of the absolute myo”.

I’m not challenging WHAT he’s saying. I’m not saying anything about the content or Tentai. I’m AM saying that the conclusion is wrong in it’s syntax; in english, in American, in modernity.
Written by Matty about 5 months ago.

I think its confusing, but not wrong.

Could it have been done better? Maybe. But then you get into different philosophies of translation. Some radical ideas are to translate word for word, and when you do this with a language like Japanese that has a completely different grammatical structure, you end up with Babelfish gibberish. Do you try to stay as close to the original as possible? Do you take license and paraphrase, even if it means rearranging arguments and even adding commentary that is not present in the original? Do you scrap the original and present an impressionistic translation?

So far, the Soka Gakkai translation committee I find to be very good. The Nichiren Shu translations - I think they could stand to have an editor tighten up the language and make it consistent. There is a Shoshu guy, Martin Bradley, who does some interesting translations, though I find his phrasing a little awkward at times.

One of the weaknesses of the Soka Gakkai translations into English is that they seem to work from the modern Japanese versions of the Gosho Zenshu, not the originals in Nichiren’s own words. The Nichiren Shu translations are from Nichiren’s originals. I don’t know about Bradley.

I will suggest though, as I mentioned before, when we start getting Tientai translated into English and we start becoming familiar with the manner in which Tientai constructed arguments, these kinds of constructions in Nichiren’s writings will be easier to understand and actually open up new understandings of Nichiren. I can’t put my finger on it, but there is something very peculiar about logic and argument construction in Tientai philosophy.
Written by Matty about 5 months ago.

Just to add, I think of mathematical syntax …

a(b+(c-d/e))/3

So in this equation, what do you do first? it would have to be “c-d” then divide that by “e” then add that to b, then multiply by a, and divide by 3.

former and latter
but within former here, there is a subset former and latter that functions within the former and latter relationship above.

former (comparative) and latter (absolute)
where former = (former = “mahayana and hinayana” and latter = “Lotus”)

sorry to beat the horse.
Written by Joe Isuzu about 5 months ago.

“Do you try to stay as close to the original as possible? Do you take license and paraphrase, even if it means rearranging arguments and even adding commentary that is not present in the original? Do you scrap the original and present an impressionistic translation?”
Exactly! And that’s what I addressed in my following post. You do the best you can. But if you mix ancient syntax with modern you damn well better have a footnote.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Jan				May »
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Joe Isuzu's Daily Slander

ABSOLUTE WONDERFULNESS

Comments

Leave a Comment

Recent Posts

Browse by Tags

Categories

Meta

Archives