The Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu teach that the Maka Shikan (Great Concentration and Insight) is the Lotus Sutra of the Middle Days of the Law. In fact, Nichiren clearly explains that the Maka Shikan is inferior to the Lotus Sutra and Tientai is inferior to Shakyamuni Buddha. In fact, according to Nichiren, Tientai was 42 stages below Shakyamuni in the 52 stages of Bodhisattva practice. He also teaches that the practice of Great Concentration and Insight in the Latter Day, is as useful as yesterdays calendar.
Next, with regard to the criticism that, when T’ien-t’ai came to the guideline pertaining to the observation of the mind, he set aside his earlier interpretations based on the theoretical teaching and essential teaching, what passage in the Lotus Sutra would appear to support such a conclusion, what commentary by what Buddhist teacher advocates that one set aside the teachings of the Buddha? Even if the interpretation were by T’ien-t’ai himself, if it goes against the golden words of Shakyamuni Buddha and against the Lotus Sutra, then it should under no circumstances be followed. For the Buddha himself warned that one should “rely on the Law and not upon persons,” and from the time of Nāgārjuna and T’ien-t’ai and Dengyō on, this has been the rule.
Next, with regard to the criticism that, when T’ien-t’ai came to the guideline pertaining to the observation of the mind, he set aside his earlier interpretations based on the theoretical teaching and essential teaching, what passage in the Lotus Sutra would appear to support such a conclusion, what commentary by what Buddhist teacher advocates that one set aside the teachings of the Buddha? Even if the interpretation were by T’ien-t’ai himself, if it goes against the golden words of Shakyamuni Buddha and against the Lotus Sutra, then it should under no circumstances be followed. For the Buddha himself warned that one should “rely on the Law and not upon persons,” and from the time of Nāgārjuna and T’ien-t’ai and Dengyō on, this has been the rule.
Furthermore, the point of T’ien-t’ai’s interpretation is that once the great doctrines of the theoretical teaching have been propounded, this means that the great doctrines of the sutras preached prior to the Lotus Sutra are superseded; that once the great doctrines of the essential teaching have been propounded, then the great doctrines of the theoretical teaching are superseded; and once the great doctrines of the observation of the mind have been propounded, then the great doctrines of the essential teaching are superseded. This interpretation is based on the understanding that the basic Law permeating all things is the one Law, the wonderful Law, the unfathomable, and that one carries out one’s practice on the basis of this understanding.
T’ien-t’ai in his interpretation is saying that the reason that now, in the Middle Day of the Law, the practice to be carried out is this practice of observation of the mind, is that, if one were to attempt to approach the truth through the theoretical teaching, that teaching would prove too extensive in content, and if one were to attempt to approach it through the essential teaching, that teaching would prove too lofty ever to be fully comprehended. Therefore these two approaches are not suitable to persons of shallow learning. Hence T’ien-t’ai is recommending that one simply concentrate on the observation of the mind whereby one may observe the wonderful Law within one’s own mind or inner being.
His interpretation does not in any way mean that one is to set aside the wonderful Law. If one were to set aside the wonderful Law, then what would there be to observe within one’s own mind or inner being? Should one cast aside the precious wish-granting jewel and take mere tiles and stones to be one’s treasure?
How pitiful, that the scholars of the Tendai school today, because they allow themselves to be influenced by the teachings of the Nembutsu, True Word, and Zen schools, should misinterpret T’ien-t’ai’s doctrines and commentaries, turn their backs on the Lotus Sutra, and commit the error of greatly slandering the Law!
If you assert that Great Concentration and Insight is superior to the Lotus Sutra, then you lay yourself open to a variety of objections.
Great Concentration and Insight represents a kind of personal enlightenment gained by T’ien-t’ai at his place of practice. But the Lotus Sutra represents the great Law gained by Shakyamuni Buddha at his place of practice. (This is the first objection.)
Shakyamuni is the Buddha of perfect enlightenment and complete reward. T’ien-t’ai gained a stage of enlightenment that did not reach to the first of the ten stages of security; he did not advance beyond the stage of hearing the name and words of the truth, the stage of perception and action, and the stage of resemblance to enlightenment. In terms of the fifty-two stages of bodhisattva practice, he was forty-two stages lower than Shakyamuni. (This is the second objection.)
The Lotus Sutra represents the original purpose for which Shakyamuni and the other Buddhas made their appearance in the world. Great Concentration and Insight represents a personal enlightenment for the revelation of which T’ien-t’ai made his appearance in the world. (This is the third objection.)
In the case of the Lotus Sutra, Many Treasures Buddha attested to the truth of the sutra, and all the emanations of Shakyamuni Buddha who had come to the assembly extended their long broad tongues upward to the Brahma heaven as proof of their agreement. The Lotus Sutra is the great pure Law of which Many Treasures Buddha says, “All that you have expounded is the truth!” [and the emanation Buddhas agree]. Great Concentration and Insight is simply T’ien-t’ai’s exposition of that Law. (This is the fourth objection.)
There are various other ways in which these two texts, the Lotus Sutra and Great Concentration and Insight, differ from one another, but I will omit mention of them here.
To further answer the questions posed above, with regard to the type of persons for whom the teachings were set forth, if you assert that those teachings that were intended for persons of superior capability are of greater worth, then you are saying that one should discard the true teaching and adopt the provisional teachings. That is because T’ien-t’ai stated, “The more provisional the teaching, the higher must be the stage [of those it can bring to enlightenment].”
And if you say that those teachings that were intended for persons of inferior capability are of lesser worth, then you are saying that one should discard the provisional teachings and adopt the true teaching. That is because T’ien-t’ai stated, “The truer the teaching, the lower the stage [of those it can bring to enlightenment].”
Therefore, if you say that the teaching of concentration and insight was set forth for the sake of persons of superior capability and the Lotus Sutra was set forth for the sake of persons of inferior capability, then you are saying that the teaching of concentration and insight is inferior to the Lotus Sutra because it is addressed to persons of higher capability, and that is in fact the truth of the matter.
The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai was in a previous incarnation present among the assembly at Eagle Peak and heard the Buddha expound [the wonderful Law, which represented] the true reason for his appearance in the world. But when the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai was in the world, the time was not yet right, and therefore he did not expound the wonderful Law, but instead called his teachings concentration and insight. He was among those who had been taught and converted by the Buddha in his transient status, and therefore he did not expound the Law that had been entrusted to those taught and converted by the Buddha in his true identity. The wonderful Law, which teaches the truth outright, he expounded in an alloyed form under the name concentration and insight. It was thus not the wonderful Law just as pit is, but a kind of provisionally clothed form of the Law.
One should understand, therefore, that the type of capability of people for whom the teachings of T’ien-t’ai were intended was like one suited for the provisionally clothed perfect teaching propagated by the Buddha when he was in the world. But the capability of people who are taught and converted by the bodhisattvas who are the disciples of the Buddha in his true identity is one that can directly accept the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra." -- Nichiren
Who in the Tendai School states that the Mohe Zhiguan is superior to the Lotus Sutra? No one has ever claimed that. Who in the Tendai School claims that Zhiyi is superior to Sakyamuni? No one has ever claimed that.
ReplyDeleteNichikan taught, "the 28 Chapter Lotus Sutra was the Lotus Sutra in the Former Day, the Maka Shikan was the Lotus Sutra in the Middle Day, and Namu Myoho renge kyo is the Lotus Sutra in the Latter Day." The Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai still teaches as did Nichikan. You obviously are not very well studied on this matter.
ReplyDeleteI asked you who in the Tendai School says these things. You specifically said "How pitiful, that the scholars of the Tendai school today...misinterpret T’ien-t’ai’s doctrines and commentaries, turn their backs on the Lotus Sutra, and commit the error of greatly slandering the Law!" Nichikan, Nichiren Shoshu, and SGI are not the Tendai School. It is possible to respond without insulting your interlocutor, particularly if you actually read their question.So again, I ask you, who in the Tendai School says these things?
DeleteNichiren stated, it is found in Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation. I am unsure of the author. Are you saying the greatest scholar of the Kamakura period is mistaken? I suggest you look up the Tendai commentary, Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation, and get back to me.
ReplyDeleteEither you are being disingenuous, or you struggle to understand what you read. Nichiren does not state that "it is found in 'Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation'". The work entitled 'Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation' is a work by Nichiren- it is not a Tendai commentary. I thought you said you were well read on these matters?
DeleteSo, at the beginning of this discussion, you failed to understand my question(which was 'who in the Tendai School claims these things?'), directed me to the teachings of Nichikan, Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI, and implied that I was unlearned in these matters. You have now directed me to a work by Nichiren himself, which you claim to be a Tendai commentary, the author of which you claim to be unsure (after suggesting that I am 'obviously not well read' in these matters).
Given that this is a work by Nichiren, an individual who established himself in opposition to the Tendai School, by directing me to this work by Nichiren, you have still not shown any text, or individual from the Tendai School, that teaches A) that the Mohe Zhiguan is superior to the Lotus Sutra, or B) that the Tendai School views Zhiyi as superior to Sakyamuni Buddha. You have only shown that Nichiren claims this.
You may wish to call Nichiren the 'greatest scholar of the Kamakura Period' if you like. That is up to you. Given the fact that no one apart from his own disciples have included his thought in their works, suggests that at the very least, you cannot simply claim that he was the best scholar, and expect everyone else to accept it. If you really feel that Nichiren was the best scholar of the Kamakura Period, follow in his footsteps, and actually show me, and everyone else that a Tendai text actually says the things that you, and Nichiren claim they do. It should be easy, if the rot in the Tendai School is as severe as you both claim. Remember, both you (in this blog post) and Nichiren (in the Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation) tell us to "rely upon the Law, and not on the person" - so do as you both tell us to, and rely on the actual Dharma, not on what you heard second-hand through someone elses text claiming that some other text says.
And by the way, for the record, I have read the text by Nichiren called 'Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation'. The title of the letter, is a play on the fact that the title of the chapter in the Mohe Zhiguan, on the actual Contemplation to be conducted, is called 'Correct Contemplation'. Nichiren's letter tells me what Nichiren said about it, evidently people disagreed with the claim at the time. Nichiren at least quoted works outside of his own letters- I'd really appreciate it, if you'd do the same.
I will ask for a third time, who or what text, in the Tendai School says A) that the Mohe Zhiguan is superior to the Lotus Sutra? And B) that Zhiyi is superior to Sakyamuni Buddha?
Are you a Tendai adherent?
ReplyDeleteIt is also a Tendai commentary, if i am reading correctly... see footnote 8. Fact remains, neither you nor I know what doctrines 13th century Tendai monks were promoting.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. I misread. Footnote 8 of the "Cover Letter to Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation" refers back to Nichiren's work. Still, I maintain, neither you nor I know what the Tendai monks were teaching during the Kamakura era. Nichiren was more familiar with their actual teachings. So I depend on his analysis. If you choose not to, that is your loss.
ReplyDeleteI am a Tendai adherent, it matters not. My final authority is the Lotus Sutra, an authority you suggest you also accept. The Lotus Sutra tells both you and I, that slandering those who uphold the Lotus Sutra is a serious infraction. One would think you'd take that to heart because as you said, you "rely on the Law/Dharma, not on the person". If you take the Law over the person, then any of the claims made by any person, ought to be verified, particularly if leaving them unverified, amounts to disregarding the Lotus Sutra's instructions pertaining to those who uphold the Sutra. If you simply say that Nichiren knows best, you are relying on the person. If you say that Nichiren is the greatest scholar, and so I need not provide evidence for his accusations, you are relying on the person. If you suggest that it is "my loss" if I don't "depend on his analysis", you not only say emphatically, that you rely on the person, but also that you encourage me and others to do so also. Is this not a denial of the Four Reliances in the Nirvana Sutra? A text we both consider to have been preached in the same period as the Lotus?
DeleteOn this blog, you mention this teaching time and again as criticism of SGI. I would imagine that that means you agree that the Four Reliances are important. Your ideas here are inconsistent.
You suggested that neither you nor I can know, what Tendai Monks were teaching during the Kamakura Period, and that Nichiren who lived at the time, wrote about the teachings of Tendai Monks at the time. Your logic here is faulty in more than a few ways. Tendai Monks wrote about what they were teaching, just as Nichiren did. We know what they taught, because they tell us. If you suggest that what they wrote about their teachings, differs from what they actually taught, then by the same logic, you must also accept that what Nichiren said they taught, and what they actually taught, might equally be different. If you wish to apply this logic, we can say only that no true claim about what they taught can be deduced from either the writings of Tendai Monks, nor the writings of Nichiren. Therefore, your original decision to repeat Nichiren's claims in this blogpost was a fools errand, for no truth can be deduced on the matter. This is obviously nonsense.
The second issue with the logic you apply here, is that, even if what you say is true, and we cannot know what Tendai Monks taught (meaning we must disregard their own works at the time), you must give up the authority of Nichiren's Gosho, for they were written by him at the time (and as you've already implied, we cannot take the word of Tendai Monks on what they actually taught- and therefore naturally, cannot take Nichiren's word for what he himself actually taught). If you'd like to make this sort of absurd argument, the entire basis for your tradition collapses, for you cannot argue for the claims made in Nichiren's letters. My tradition however, is totally fine- I can accept your claim that I can't know what Tendai Monks claimed during the Kamakura era, and therefore simply rely on the original Tendai/Tiantai materials, and the Lotus Sutra. Obviously, I am not claiming that we can't know what Nichiren taught by looking at his Gosho- of course we can! And the same applies to the teachings of Tendai Monks in their own writings. My logic here is consistent, yours is not.
In fact, in the cover letter to the 'Establishing the Correct Contemplation', Nichiren admits that during the Kamakura Period, all of the Tendai lineages fall within two major lineages known as the Eshin and Danna. Nichiren then goes on to say that the Eshin lineage considers the teachings of the Mohe Zhiguan/ Maka Shikan to be derived from both the Trace Gate and Origin Gate sections of the Lotus Sutra, While the Danna lineage considers the teachings of the Mohe Zhiguan/ Maka Shikan to be derived from only the Trace Gate of the Lotus Sutra. This contradicts the claims Nichiren is making in the 'Establishing the Correct Contemplation' itself. How? If both lineages claim that the teachings in the Mohe Zhiguan/ Maka Shikan, are derived from the Lotus Sutra- the only purpose of these lineages saying this, would be to connect these teachings (the Maka Shikan) to their highest authority- that is, the Lotus Sutra. So the claim that he makes when he says that the Tendai School considers the Maka Shikan to be superior to the Lotus Sutra, is destroyed by his own cover letter. It is inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, you speak as the only upholders of the Lotus Sutra, and claim that only you are capable of defending the Wonderful Dharma. If this is so, you should be able to show it. If I am a false upholder of the Lotus Sutra, I shouldn't be the one "relying on the Dharma, not the person" should I? I am not here to change your mind, or tell you that you're wrong. You can believe whatever you like. My simple point, is that if you claim that you and Nichiren are right, and I am wrong, you should be able to show it. Showing it means providing an outside source, that demonstrates what Nichiren is saying. If you cannot, then you do not know that the claim is true. If you do not know that it is true, but trust a person when they say it's true, and at the same time, you do know, that the Lotus Sutra (Dharma) extols you not to slander those who uphold the Lotus Sutra- then you are following the person(Nichiren), not the Law (Lotus Sutra). This is the very crime that you accuse me of, with this blog post. If you don't like it when someone claims this of you, do better, when you claim it of someone else.
In short, if you want to engage in Shakubuku, make sure you are qualified to do so. Nichiren engaged in Shakubuku, and you believe he was the 'greatest scholar'. Sounds like you think he was qualified.
ReplyDeleteBe consistent. If you want to say that you alone uphold the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren's Teachings- first, ensure that there are no differences between the teachings of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren- if there aren't, It should be easy to prove. If there are differences, you will have to uphold one over the other- if you choose to uphold Nichiren's words over the Lotus Sutra, stop claiming that you or Nichiren alone uphold the Lotus Sutra. And, admit that you rely on the person(Nichiren), not the Law (Lotus Sutra). If you choose to uphold the Lotus Sutra as superior, when there are differences, then you must prove your claims when you make accusations towards others who also claim to uphold the Lotus Sutra. Rely on the Law, not on the person. Be consistent.
If you care about the Lotus Sutra, protect it with the consistency and care it deserves- not he said/ she said. Conversely, if you care about Nichiren, protect his teachings by putting in the work it deserves, not saying 'he said it, so we are right'. If you want to do Shakubuku, you actually have to have the knowledge of the sources outside your own, that you wish to "break and subdue". If you don't want to, how can you "break and subdue" anything? You're just talking- you don't even know if what you are breaking and subduing is wrong or not- that would require knowing enough about the doctrines you are breaking and subduing.
You just posted a blog post about an arrogant Brahmin defeated in debate by a humble Monk- if you are the humble one, and I'm the arrogant one, you have to actually do the work in debate- not simply tell everyone that you heard that your opponent says 'x'. Your opponent simply needs to reply: "I do not say 'x'"- Who have you broken and subdued?
And finally, when you attack the Tendai School, and yet you, and Nichiren, both quote extensively from our Tiantai/Tendai literature, as proof for the truth of your own doctrines, you need to actually know the sources- not simply the quotes here and there, that you found in Nichiren's letters. If you are the true followers of the Great Master Tiantai, prove it. If we are false followers of the Great Master Tiantai, prove it. If you are the true upholders of the Lotus Sutra, prove it. If we are the false upholders of the Lotus Sutra, prove it. And if your primary response to all of this is something like: "it doesn't matter. My main goal here is to criticise Nichiren Shoshu and SGI", then I ask you to consider this: If you wish to establish Nichiren's teachings on the Lotus Sutra to be correct, you must prove that the Lotus Sutra Tradition (i.e. Tendai School) which he rebuked, is incorrect. If you do not do this, you have not established Nichiren's veracity- and therefore, what is the point of discussing which interpretation of Nichiren's teaching is correct or not!?
Chapter 21 of the Lotus Sutra states, “this man”. Nichiren must be “this man” because ONLY he has succeeded in performing a literal bodily reading of the Lotus Sutra, nearly passage by passage. Therefore, any teaching by any Tendai Monk or Tendai adherent, least of all those warrior Tendai monks who killed 5000 Nichiren believers, must be inferior to Nichiren’s because not one has undergone such travails as Nichiren for the Sutra's sake.
ReplyDeleteYou intimate that there are quite a few adherents to the Lotus Sutra, not just Nichiren and a handful of his followers, they who actually do uphold the Law and not the person. Have you undergone the persecutions and travails predicted in the Lotus Sutra as did Nichiren, and I? Are you saying, Shakyamuni Buddha of the 16th Chapter of the Lotus Sutra who is a human being (and other) is not equal to the Law, and not to be followed?. Are you saying the teachings of Lotus Sutra in Chapter 23 that not only is the Lotus Sutra first and foremost but also the devotees of the Lotus Sutra. You have no idea what actually are the teachings of the Lotus Sutra nor Nichiren’s, nor mine. Had you known the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, you would have known that there is one exception to the rule “follow the Law and not the person”. Persons such as Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo Chapter of the Lotus Sutra (and the Latter Half of Chapter 15 and first half of Chapter 17, in particular) and Superior Practices (Nichiren, "this man") too are to be followed.
Certainly, you are not “this man” unless you have performed a bodily reading of the Sutra. I suggest you point people to the Lotus Sutra and if they don't understand, they should go to the teacher of the Law, Nichiren. Another example of your misunderstanding is your Tendai practice which fails to embrace the Lotus Sutra teaching on the exclusive faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra. Who is it that is disingenuous?
I have bigger fish to fry than an adherent of a teachings that is both last year's calendar and practiced by so few adherents.
My friend, I hope you’ll forgive me, but you seem to make a number of claims from one blog post to the next, in which you contradict yourself. Even within this very blog post you do so. I am sure you are sincere, and I have no qualms with your intentions. I am merely suggesting that you take that sincerity, and improve the methods with which you voice them.
DeleteBefore, I deal specifically with some of the things you’ve said in your latest replies, I’ll point out that no evidence for the claims that Tendai Masters said anything like what you have claimed, has been provided. I think we can assume that it will not be provided.
Firstly, the mention of Warrior Monks is spurious. The incident to which you refer, occurred in Kyoto, and included both Tendai Nichiren Monks Warrior Monks. If the existence of these regrettable individuals damns one tradition, it damns the other. Short of some attempt at portraying one side as ‘evil’, it serves no purpose- you have still not provided any evidence for the actual doctrinal claims you say we have.
Secondly, you talk about Chapter 21 of the Lotus Sutra, and say that it says “This man”. I am aware of the passage you are referring to, but in order to make it mean what you are claiming it means, one must ignore the rest of the sentence in which it occurs, and the chapter itself. So let’s deal with this piece by piece: you first say that it says “this man”, and that ‘this man’ refers to Nichiren. The version of the Sutra which both of us utilise is the Chinese translation by Kumarajiva. That text says: “宿王華！汝若見有受持是經者，應以青蓮花盛滿末香，供散其上。散已，作是念言：『此人不久必當取草坐於道場，破諸魔軍，當吹法螺、擊大法鼓，度脫一切眾生老病死海。』是故求佛道者、見有受持是經典人，應當如是生恭敬心。」” That actually means the following: “Constellation King Flower! If you see someone who accepts and upholds this Sutra, you should scatter as offerings over him, green lotus’ magnificent and full of ground incense. Having scatter them, [you should] think: ‘This person before long, will surely take the grass seat at the Place of the Way, destroy all the armies of Mara, blow the Dharma Conch, beat the Great Dharma Drum, [and] liberate all from the sea of birth, old age, disease and death.’ Therefore, [when] a seeker of the Buddha Path, sees an individual who accepts and upholds this Sutra-text, [they] ought to in this way, to give rise to thoughts of respect.” The part which you are saying means “this man” is actually 此人. 人 simply means person or individual- in this way we can translate it as ‘man’, given that man is also a non-gendered pronoun in English (as in mankind). In any case, ‘this man’ is referring to the people that accept and uphold the Sutra- that is why it says ‘this’- because it is referring to the sentence that came just before it. If you intend to claim that ‘this’ here means that there will be one special individual who does it, you have to ignore the rest of the chapter, which says time and again, that individuals who uphold the Sutra will experience or receive various things. It even talks about women being reborn in Amitabha’s Land of Ease and Bliss安樂世界. Would you like to suggest that those passages refer to a specific woman too? If you don’t it is inconsistent- the Chinese passages are worded almost the same. You wrote a post about Dharmaraksa who also translated the Lotus Sutra.
But Dharmaraksas version does not say a particular individual either. Next, you said that Nichiren and yourself have undergone trials for the sake of the Lotus Sutra. I do not doubt that, and I have not doubted your sincerity- it is you who have said I cannot be an upholder of the Lotus Sutra. I have simply said, prove your claim that I am not, and if you are, make sure that your published ideas on the matter are consistent and as accurate as you can make them- for it is indeed detrimental to the Lotus Sutra to speak on it with anything less than your best (which is not saying “So and so said this”). So to answer your question: yes, I have faced many hardships and tribulations for the sake of the Lotus Sutra. I face them happily, as do you, as any of us who are dedicated to the Lotus Sutra should. I’d appreciate it, if you didn’t assume that I can’t be a votary of the Lotus Sutra, simply because I am not a student of Nichiren- there were before him, and are now, devotees of the Lotus Sutra, who are, and are not his students.
DeleteYou implied that Sakyamuni Buddha of the 16th Chapter, is a person, and not the Law/Dharma, and therefore, He is an exception to the rule about “relying on the Law/Dharma, not the person”. My friend, you misunderstand here, I have not erred. Nichiren relied on Great Master Tiantai’s commentary on the Four Reliances to describe this point- this is what it says: “ 一依法不依人:依法者,實相及一切隨順實相善法, 通名為法, 亦名法身。若依實相法身,而修諸波羅蜜,萬行功德,皆悉具足,一切清淨,能至菩提。故云依法。不依人者,人是攬五陰所成,假名相好之身. 若依相好之身, 而修諸波羅蜜,萬行功德, 則皆墮顛倒, 終不得見真實法身。故云不依人也。 ”
The English for this is as follows:
“First, to rely on the Dharma/Law; do not rely on the person: ‘To rely on the Dharma/Law’ - The True Characteristic and all that accords with the Good Dharma of the True Characteristic, is commonly that referred to as ‘Dharma/Law’; it is also called the DharmaKaya. If one relies on the True Characteristic of the DharmaKaya, and cultivates all of the paramitas, the virtues of the ten thousand practices will all be complete, all purified, and one will be able to obtain Bodhi. Therefore it is said ‘rely on the Dharma/Law. ‘ Not to rely on the person’ - a person is that which is constituted by the embrace of the Five Skandha. This is provisionally called the body of major and minor [characteristics]. If one relies on the body of major and minor [characteristics], and cultivates all of the Paramitas, the virtues of the ten thousand practices, will descend into error, and in the end one will not be able to see the True DharmaKaya. Therefore it is said ‘do not rely on the person.”
The Dharmakaya is the Buddha of the 16th Chapter. He does not have the Five Skandha in the same way that you or I still do, and this is because they have been purified and become what is called the Five Part Dharmakaya五分法身- this is discussed briefly in the Infinite Meanings Sutra. He is not characterised by birth and death in the same way that you and I, and Nichiren. To understand this, you need to understand that Kaya in Sanskrit, or 身 in Chinese/Japanese means at the same time ‘body’, and ‘collection’. Therefore, DharmaKaya refers to both the Buddha’s Body as the Dharma itself, and also to the ‘collection’ of the Buddha’s Dharma. We can do the same thing in English, where I can say a ‘body of literature’ for example. In short, I take my refuge in the Buddha of the Sixteenth Chapter. It is not an exception to the rule of ‘relying on the Dharma, not the person’. The Body of ‘characteristics’ is what you and I have- in fact, here Master Tiantai is talking about the Buddha’s SambhogaKaya- so we humans and our characteristics, are even worse refuges. You should not think that Sakyamuni Buddha of the 16th Chapter is a person in this sense.
You say that Superior Practices Bodhisattva is the ‘this man’ (I.e. Nichiren) referred to in chapter 23. This is not the case. Earlier in this chapter, we are told the story of Bodhisattva Seen With Joy By All Living Beings, and this is followed by the Buddha telling us: “Can the Bodhisattva Seen with Joy by All Living Beings have been anyone else? He was none other than the present Bodhisattva Medicine King.” In other words, when the Sutra wants to tell us that two characters are the same person, it does tell us. If ‘this man’ and Superior Practices were referring to the same person, then it would tell us. If you take ‘this man’ to refer to only one individual, and that that individual is Nichiren(and you say that he is Superior Practices Bodhisattva), then should the offerings of green lotus’ not be offered to the other three Bodhisattvas of the earth? If the passage really applies to only a single individual, then you must admit this problem.
DeleteI’d really appreciate it if you stopped simply stating that I don’t understand the Lotus Sutra. If I suggest that you have misunderstood something, I am specific, and I give you my reasoning for saying as much. I ask that you provide me with the same courtesy.
Where does the Lotus Sutra say that one cannot do any Buddhist practice such as Meditation for example? I would suggest that the Lotus Sutra does not say this- it says that the Lotus Sutra is supreme, and both of us agree on this. But if you say that I am wrong, and that the Lotus Sutra says that no other practice is permissible, please provide us with the Lotus Sutra passage that says this. While we are discussing the Lotus Sutra specifically, you said that there are contradictions in the Lotus Sutra- could you be specific? I would suggest that there is no contradiction (a paradox is not the same as a contradiction).
Bigger fish to fry? A school with few adherents? The hubris overfloweth. In Mappo, the Lotus Sutra tells us that there are fewer people capable of upholding it- I should imagine that means there will be fewer adherents.
And lastly, when you say you know of no adherents of the Tendai School past, present or future, who are also upholders of the Lotus Sutra, I don’t know serious you intend that to be taken. Nichiren was ordained a Tendai Monk. Master Dengyo, Master Miaole/ Miaolo, Zhangan/Changan were all Tiantai/Tendai Monks. I guess they are all out?
In the end, please understand that I have no qualms with you, but I would expect you to defend yourself if I said you were not a true upholder of the Lotus Sutra. It is clear that you are quite sincere in your devotion. I have merely been pointing out that when you accuse me of not being sincere, It should be expected that I would ask you on what basis you claim I am insincere. I, like you, am dedicated above all else to the Lotus Sutra. We may disagree on its contents and their meaning, but I do not doubt your sincerity- all I am asking is that you consider mine, and not conclude off-handedly.
Sure, after ten million recitations of Devotion to the Wonderful Law of the Lotus Flwer Sutra and ten thousand or more recitations of the Lotus Sutra, one could even mumble a few Namu Amida Butsus according to Nichiren and a particularly wise man could benefit from meditating on the lifespan of the Tathagata and the Law of Namu Myoho renge kyo (prajna paramita) as we do for a moment daily as prescribed in Chapter 17 of the Lotus Sutra, Do you have a Gohonzon anonymous. Do you know the Meaning of ri-butsu or very real ever present Three Bodied Tathagata who saves from all sufferings and travails? The Gohonzon is this Buddha and he transfers all his merits to us. In Mappo, there is absolutely no merit meditating for hours daily to perceive theoretical Ichinen Sanzen because Namu Myoho renge kyo and Gohonzon is Actual Ichinen Sanzen. One moment of profound faith is equal to years of meditation on Great Concentration and Insight.
DeleteBy the way, I know quite a few adherents of the past, present, and future who uphold the Lotus Sutra but none in the Tendai sect of today.
ReplyDeleteOne last point. There are internal contradictions (actually paradoxes) in the Lotus Sutra. If one does not understand the Lotus Sutra, he or she, can not hope to resolve these paradoxes.
ReplyDeleteto any-mouse....it is not through intellect that one can enter....it is though faith alone.. this is what the buddha teaches, simple as that.
Delete@ Greg Romero: There is no need to call me names friend. I'll pay you respect, and I ask you do the same. As to your comment, I agree with you. We do indeed enter through faith. The key word being 'enter'. We are talking here about what is necessary to teach, and to proselytise. In order to do these things, we ought to possess knowledge of the particulars of Dharma (doctrine and practice). Nothing I have said diminishes the role of faith. But if one wants to take their faith, and publicly declare that I am unworthy of the faith I hold in the Lotus Sutra, they ought to be able to prove it. They should not simply say 'I have faith that you are insincere'.
DeleteMikkyo/Tendai is a bastardization of the exclusive faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra, mixing Shingon and Nembutsu with the faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra. This is proof that your faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra as a self proclaimed Tendai adherent.
ReplyDelete...is aberrant.
ReplyDeletePlease point out where I said you were insincere. You are very sincere but sincerely wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf you confuse the general with the specific,even in the slightest you make a grave error. Specifically “this man “ is Nichiren, th Supreme Votary of the Lotus Sutra and generally it is the votaries of the Lotus Sutra.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't progressing anywhere. Good luck to you my friend. I wish you well in your practice. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo (a practice we both share) _/|\_
Delete